Opinion ID: 1981146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Precluded Testimony of a Defense Witness

Text: Mr. Dockery contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit his witness, Mr. Billy Jones, to testify about a shooting in which Mr. Williams, originally Mr. Dockery's co-defendant who entered a plea and testified against Mr. Dockery, was involved  presumably on his own and not at the direction of Mr. Dockery. He claims this testimony about the shooting of Melvin Jones known as Renie ... in the 1600 block of E Street, sometime after mid April 1995, but before the July 1995 shooting of Mr. Ivy, would have established that Mr. Williams had a motive to lie and in fact had lied during his testimony. Id. In essence, it would have shown that Mr. Williams was not acting at the direction of Mr. Dockery. The government objected to the testimony essentially because the defense would be unable to sustain its burden ... to show that this was a shooting that was done apart from [Mr.] Dockery[`s direction]. The trial court disallowed Mr. Billy Jones' testimony about the fatal shooting of Mr. Melvin Jones because it would invite a trial on that ... shooting, and what the motive was and who else was behind it...., without any evidence other than the fact of the shooting that Mr. Dockery was not behind it. The trial court added, the issue is whether [Mr. Williams] acted on July 27th [1995] at [Mr.] Dockery's direction, and we are not [going to] have a trial as to whether he acted on [Mr.] Dockery's direction on some other day. [T]he evaluation and weighing of evidence for relevance and potential prejudice is quintessentially a discretionary function of the trial court, and [this Court] owe[s] a great deal of deference to its decision. Johnson, supra, 683 A.2d at 1095. Furthermore, `[a]n evidentiary ruling by a trial judge on the relevancy of a particular item is a highly discretionary decision that will be upset on appeal only upon a showing of grave abuse.' Carr v. United States, 585 A.2d 158, 163 (D.C.1991) (quoting Roundtree v. United States, 581 A.2d 315, 328 (D.C.1990) (other internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the trial court has a duty to exclude confusing and distracting evidence on collateral issues. Id. (citation omitted). And, it can exclude evidence that would unnecessarily prolong the trial. Reed v. United States, 584 A.2d 585, 591 (D.C.1990). Here, the testimony about the shooting of Mr. Melvin Jones would have been confusing if permitted. Mr. Williams testified that he did not shoot at members of the E Street Crew for his own purposes. Other than the April and July 1995 shootings, he was never questioned about any others in which he was involved, whether on his own or in Mr. Dockery's behalf. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Mr. Billy Jones to testify about the fatal shooting of Mr. Melvin Jones. [11]