Jenkins v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed Ronnie Jenkins's convictions for first-degree child sexual abuse and first-degree cruelty to children, along with related post-conviction claims. The court held that the trial court had not established with sufficient certainty whether all jurors had assented to the verdict and remanded for further findings on jury unanimity. The court rejected Jenkins's other claims concerning jury instructions, hearsay, and ineffective assistance of counsel, affirming the convictions subject to the remand.

Holdings

1. The trial court's reliance exclusively on an unsworn letter from the Court Reporting and Recording Division was insufficient to establish with adequate certainty that juror number three had been polled and assented to the verdict. The case must be remanded for further findings on that issue.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury that a lawyer's question is not evidence and that whether a fact exists depends on the witness's answer.
3. The trial court did not plainly err by declining to reopen the trial sua sponte or provide the jury with written statements that had not been admitted into evidence.
4. Jenkins failed to establish constitutionally deficient performance. Counsel preserved his objection to the report-of-rape testimony, counsel's failure to object to the medical-record testimony did not produce discernible prejudice or deficient performance, and counsel's withdrawal of the objection to the double-hearsay medical record was a reasonable strategic decision under the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in correcting the trial transcript to show that the twelfth juror had been polled and assented to the guilty verdict.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed plain error in responding to the jury's questions about lawyers' questions and written statements referenced during testimony.
3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to prevent or object to hearsay testimony admitted under the report-of-rape and medical-diagnosis exceptions.
4. Whether counsel's strategic withdrawal of an objection to double-level hearsay in a medical record constituted constitutionally deficient performance.

Disposition

remanded