Opinion ID: 2405451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Issue of Barber's Alleged Drug Use.

Text: Brown's attorney represented to the court, ex parte, that Barber had a motive to fabricate his account of the alleged robbery in order to conceal the fact that he was himself engaged in illicit activities on February 14, 1994. Specifically, counsel claimed that he was entitled to cross-examine Barber about Barber's abuse of drugs: Basically what I'm going to seek to show on cross-examination of Mr. Barber is that what he was really doing on the night of this incident was looking to buy drugs and that [the reason] that he was defrauding his company ... was to help support his drug habit. When the trial judge asked counsel whether he had a good faith basis to inquire into Barber's alleged drug use, counsel proffered that I have information from sources, people who know him, and people who know him have told me that.       People who have met Mr. Barber, people who have seen him out at parties and things like that. The judge responded as follows: So do you have a basis to proffer to the court that on the day of this robbery, [Barber] was under the influence of drugs, which I think might be relevant to the issue of his ability to observe? ... That's a different issue, that's the only thing I would allow. I think it's prejudicial and not particularly probative, and my earlier ruling stands even in light of your ex parte proffer.... It does not bear directly [on] the issue at trial here, which is whether your client robbed him.       You will be allowed to ask about alleged drug abuse, provided you have a good faith basis for believing that at the time of the robbery this complainant was under the influence of drugs. If you do not have that good faith basis, ... I'm ruling it's not admissible. Counsel reiterated that he had a good faith basis to believe that [Barber] was looking for drugs on that evening. When the judge asked why that was relevant, counsel explained: The relevance, Your Honor, is that my whole theory of this case, my whole opening statement, is [that] [Mr. Barber is] not telling the truth about what he did. The jury's going to know that because I'm going to impeach him about a half dozen times ... with prior inconsistent statements and also the fact that he was supporting a drug habit and that he was looking to buy drugs that night and that's why he was with these people and that's how he got shot. The following colloquy then occurred: COURT: Before you cross-examine him on any reference to the subject of drugs, please provide me [with] a case that says it is permissible to cross-examine him about drugs when you have no reason to believe, based on your proffer, that at the time of the robbery he was under the influence of drugs. I'd like to see a case that says it's proper examination.       I'd like you to provide me with some authority on the second proffer, which is that he was looking for drugs. I think that is again prejudicial and I think I'd like to see a case that says you can do that. COUNSEL: I'm going to look for one, Your Honor, but ... it's one of the most common defenses in this courthouse, especially in sex cases, but often robbery cases, but especially in sex cases where it's a rape or sodomy, that what actually was going on was a consensual act whereby there was some agreement to pay and it broke down, the person didn't pay and there was an argument, fight or whatever, and then the police end up being called and it was called a rape instead of the person saying what really happened according to the defense, which is that this was a consensual act and it was a prostitution. That's one of the most common defenses in the courthouse. COURT: I'll review my cases, too. I just know that the Court of Appeals has recognized that it's a very sensitive area and there has to be some predicate met in my mind before allowing it, but I will review them also. As far as the record discloses, counsel did not provide the judge with any authority to support his proposed cross-examination. The defense asked the judge to instruct the jury with respect to the defense theory of the case, as follows: The defense in this case is that Mario Barber is not telling the truth because he wanted to direct attention away from his own actions. With some reluctance, the judge charged the jury as requested, noting that she was obliged so to instruct if there is any evidence fairly tending to bear upon the issue, however weak. See Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 5.01 (4th ed. 1993) (quoting Rhodes v. United States, 354 A.2d 863, 864 (D.C.1976)). The jury convicted Brown of armed robbery and of PFCV. This appeal followed.