King v. United States, 10-CF-1263

Players:  Glickman, Thompson, Ruiz. Opinion by Ruiz.  Debra Soltis for Mr. King.  Trial judge: Dixon.

Facts:  Rashawn King was accused of shooting the decedent in an alley over a debt.  After the shooting, police set up surveillance around the home of Mr. King’s mother, where they believed he lived.  Mr. King did not return to his mother’s home for ten days after the incident.  At trial, the government sought to admit Mr. King’s flight from his mother’s home as evidence of his consciousness of guilt.  The defense objected, pointing out that during this time period, Mr. King was on the run for a juvenile matter.  The trial court held that both sides could present their explanations for Mr. King’s conduct to the jury. 

Issue: Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Mr. King’s flight when the defense proffered an alternate explanation for Mr. King’s absence from his mother’s house.

Held:  The trial court erred by allowing the government to introduce evidence of Mr. King’s flight without first evaluating whether this evidence “demonstrated ‘actual guilt of the crime charged.’ Smith v. United States, 777 A.2d 801, 807 (D.C. 2001).” King, slip op. at 13 (emphasis added in King).  It was inadequate for the trial court to simply determine that because both sides had “a basis” for their theories as to King’s behavior, both sides could present those theories to the jury.  Id.  (Ultimately, the error in this case was found to be harmless.)

Of Note:

·         “When a defendant may have an unrelated strong reason to avoid the police, like guilt for another crime or fear of incarceration on an outstanding warrant, the trial court must consider that reason before determining whether to admit the government’s evidence of flight as relevant to consciousness of guilt of the charged crime.” Id. at 13-14.

·         If “the action that allegedly creates the inference [here, absence from mother’s home] suggests, as it does here, a reasonable alternative interpretation [being with a girlfriend, or on the run for a juvenile matter], the probative value largely, if not completely, disappears.’ [Williams v. United States, 52 A.3d 25, 41 (D.C. 2012)].”  Id. 

·         The government bears the burden of meeting each of the four factors described in United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977), to establish the admissibility of flight evidence.  Id. at 12.

How To Use: Evidence of flight is an important pre-trial issue to litigate.  With a strong alternate explanation for your client’s flight, you may be able to prevent the government’s prejudicial evidence of flight from ever being presented to the jury.  Getting a favorable pre-trial ruling will also obviate the need to introduce otherwise prejudicial evidence – e.g., that the client was on probation or had an outstanding warrant in another matter – in order to counter the government’s theory on flight.  NG