Brocksmith v. United States
| Decision Date | 18 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–CF–287.,12–CF–287. |
| Citation | 99 A.3d 690 |
| Parties | Russell H. BROCKSMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Joshua Deahl, Public Defender Service, with whom James W. Klein and Samia Fam, Public Defender Service, were on the brief, for appellant.
Lauren R. Bates, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Ronald C. Machen Jr., United States Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman and Thomas Bednar, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before GLICKMAN and BLACKBURNE–RIGSBY, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior Judge.
Following a jury trial, appellant Russell Brocksmith was found guilty of assault with intent to commit robbery (“AWIR”).1 The complainant, Valerie Villalta, is a male-to-female transgender person. Because this was appellant's third violent crime conviction, the trial court imposed an enhanced sentence of fifteen years in prison, followed by five years of supervised release.2
On appeal, appellant principally argues that the trial court committed reversible error by reinstructing the jury on “reasonable inferences” during jury deliberations. Specifically, the court gave the reinstruction in response to a juror's note asking whether, in determining witness credibility, he or she could take into consideration the belief that the complainant had an “overwhelming incentive” not to report the crime for fear of discrimination and exposing herself as transgender. Appellant argues that there was no evidence that the complainant harbored such fears, and that, consequently, the trial court's neutral response misled the jury into believing that it could consider a theory that appellant contends was unsupported by the record and speculative. Alternatively, appellant argues that the case should be remanded for resentencing for two reasons: (1) the trial court misread the sentence enhancement statute, § 22–1804a, to impose a “presumption” against suspending any part of his fifteen-year sentence; and (2) the trial court did not strictly comply with the required procedures of D.C.Code § 23–111 (2001), prior to handing down the enhanced sentence.
We affirm. In light of the evidence and arguments made at trial, the trial court's reinstruction did not have the effect of encouraging the jury to engage in improper speculation because there was evidence to support the inference that the juror's note sought to make. Further, on this record, we conclude that a remand for resentencing is unnecessary.
On August 1, 2011, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Ms. Villalta3 was walking home from work along 16th Street and Buchanan Street in Northwest, Washington, D.C. When she walked past appellant—whom she had seen around the neighborhood on three or four prior occasions—he “immediately attacked” her and tried to steal her handbag. Ms. Villalta resisted by holding onto her bag and, in response, appellant grabbed her hair, wrapped it around his hand “very tightly,” and cursed “f* * *ing b* * *h, give me your purse.” Appellant then punched Ms. Villalta in the head three or four times. Ms. Villalta threatened to call the police, which caused appellant to stop his attack and walk away very quickly. Although still frightened, Ms. Villalta grabbed her cell phone and snapped a photograph of appellant as he scurried away. Ms. Villalta then went home and called the police roughly ten to fifteen minutes later. The police stopped appellant based on Ms. Villalta's description. Thereafter, Ms. Villalta identified him at the location where he was stopped, and appellant was arrested.
The government's case relied heavily on Ms. Villalta's account. Consequently, the defense's primary strategy was to attack Ms. Villalta's credibility, arguing in its opening statement that Ms. Villalta fabricated the assault after appellant rebuffed her unwanted sexual overtures and insulted her as he walked past her on the street. As part of this strategy, the defense emphasized Ms. Villalta's status as a transgender female and claimed that because appellant's insults “cut deep” and “went to the core of who she was,” Ms. Villalta decided to “get even” with appellant by having him falsely arrested.4
Defense counsel's cross-examination of Ms. Villalta further sought to engrain this impression on the jury. Specifically, counsel first questioned Ms. Villalta as to why she delayed calling the police, asking: She answered: Then, later on, defense counsel and Ms. Villalta engaged in the following parley:
Subsequently, the government's redirect focused on Ms. Villalta's thought process after the assault, presumably to show why she hesitated in calling the police. In response, Ms. Villalta testified:
A lot of things went through my head. I repeat, I was afraid. Never in my life has an incident like this happened to me here. It's a bit difficult to explain. I never would have wanted this to happen to me. I know I'm a transgender person. And this happened to me....5
Ms. Villalta also explained that she initially hesitated in calling the police because she was afraid that the police “would not arrest [appellant] and [she] could have run into him again and he could have done it again[,]” but that she ultimately decided to do so because: “[H]e hit me and he tried to rob me and it hurt too much, and at the same time I was afraid.”
Additionally, the government proffered into evidence the photograph that Ms. Villalta had taken of appellant, her 911 call, and the testimony of the responding police officers for corroboration. Detective Robert Schmidt of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) testified that he brought Ms. Villalta to the location where appellant was stopped for a show-up identification. He observed that Ms. Villalta was “upset, flustered” and had a flushed face, red marks on her left arm, and hair “coming right out” of her head. Officer Bryon Words similarly testified that, upon responding to Ms. Villalta's 911 call, she immediately showed him the photograph of appellant and told him that he tried to rob her. Her demeanor was “upset,” “aggravated,” and “depressed,” and her appearance was notable for the redness on her wrists and neck. Lastly, Officer Krystal Cannata testified that Ms. Villalta had shaky hands and was nervous when she met her, and that she felt a “lump” or “knot” in the back of Ms. Villalta's head and observed a “clump” of her hair falling out. The defense's sole witness was Pastor James Lumpkins, who testified that he gave appellant fifty dollars for a commercial driver's license, the inference being that appellant had no reason to rob Ms. Villalta.6
The trial court gave the jury instructions prior to deliberation, which included the standard instructions on the function of the jury to determine the facts of the case and the believability of witnesses, see Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.102 (5th ed. rev.2013). As part of this standard instruction, the court also articulated to the jury that it should determine the facts without prejudice, and should not be improperly influenced by “one's race, ethnic origin or gender[,]” and that it must decide the case “solely from a fair consideration of the evidence.” The court also instructed the jury that it was “permitted to draw from the facts, which you find have been proven, such reasonable inferences as you feel are justified in light of your experience,” see Criminal Jury Instructions, No. 2.104.
During deliberations the following day, Juror No. 1 submitted the following question to the trial court:
Your Honor, I believe that the claimant [i.e., Ms. Villalta] most likely has an overwhelming incentive to not report an assault because it would mean she would or could expose herself as LGBT/transgendered to authorities and total strangers and the general public many of whom may have deep seated an[ ]imosity and hostility towards her and possibly risk danger. Am I permitted to consider this as I evaluate the credibility of the claimant[?]
The trial court, government, and defense counsel engaged in a colloquy on the appropriate response, to which defense counsel asked the court to instruct the juror that he or she could not consider this factor in determining Ms. Villalta's credibility because “there's no evidence that the witness is in any way ... trying to hide ... her sexual orientation or the fact that she's transgender or that she was worried that's something that would come out.” The trial court disagreed with defense counsel's contention, observing that there was evidence Ms. Villalta was transgender and hesitated before calling the police, and that, as a result, “[s]urely you can't say the opposite that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucas v. United States, Nos. 15-CF-820
...one factor that could assist the jury in weighing her credibility and truthfulness, and was therefore relevant. See Brocksmith v. United States , 99 A.3d 690, 697 (D.C. 2014) (noting that a "witness' demeanor on the stand ... is of the utmost importance in the determination of credibility" ......
- Jones v. United States
-
Bland v. United States
...convictions not made before the imposition of sentence could not be raised to attack the sentence. See, e.g., Brocksmith v. United States, 99 A.3d 690, 702–03 (D.C. 2014) ; Sanders v. United States, 809 A.2d 584, 600–602 (D.C. 2002) ; Smith v. United States, 356 A.2d 650, 652 (D.C. 1976). O......
-
Belt v. United States
...victim was in "severe" pain on account of evidence of the victim's injuries and the victim's reactions to them. See Brocksmith v. United States , 99 A.3d 690, 697 (D.C. 2014) (jury is entitled to draw a "vast range of reasonable inferences from the evidence" using its "common sense" and eve......