Jamarr Medley, Antoine Richardson, and Lucious McLeod v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed convictions arising from two assaults involving the same victim, addressing joinder, severance, admission of recorded jail calls, sufficiency of the evidence supporting serious bodily injury, merger of convictions, and other trial and sentencing issues. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for the trial court to vacate convictions that merged with the aggravated assault while armed convictions.

Holdings

1. The two assaults and the defendants were properly joined because they were part of the same series of acts or transactions; the 2010 assault was alleged and supported as an effort to prevent Brown from testifying about the 2009 assault.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance because the appellants failed to show the manifest or compelling prejudice required for relief.
3. The jail calls did not require further redaction because the challenged statements were not hearsay; they were directives, verbal acts, or evidence of Richardson's consciousness of guilt.
4. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Brown suffered serious bodily injury during the 2009 assault.
5. The prior-assault evidence was admissible to show Richardson's specific motive and to rebut his self-defense theory; although the trial court failed to make an express clear-and-convincing-evidence finding, that error was harmless.
6. The trial court properly refused to instruct the jury that Richardson's initial encounter with Brown was not part of the charged conduct.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a missing-evidence instruction.
8. Medley's and Richardson's convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault with significant bodily injury merge with their aggravated-assault-while-armed convictions; McLeod's assault-with-significant-bodily-injury conviction merges with his aggravated-assault-while-armed conviction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 2009 and 2010 assaults and the defendants were properly joined under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 8(b).
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying severance under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 14.
3. Whether recorded statements made by Richardson during jail calls should have been further redacted before admission against Medley and McLeod.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish serious bodily injury for the aggravated-assault-while-armed convictions.
5. Whether evidence that Richardson previously assaulted another person was admissible to show motive and rebut self-defense.
6. Whether the jury should have been instructed that Richardson's initial encounter with Brown was not part of the charged conduct.
7. Whether the trial court properly refused to give a missing-evidence instruction.
8. Whether the trial court improperly delegated authority over Richardson's fine-payment schedule.
9. Whether certain assault convictions merged with aggravated assault while armed.

Disposition

remanded