Opinion ID: 2010891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Third-Party Motives

Text: Wheeler also asserts that the trial court erred in granting the government's motions to preclude evidence of cocaine found in Taylor's possession and the presence of drugs in his system. Defense counsel objected, arguing it's just as likely that [Taylor] was killed in the process of doing a drug transaction, and thus that a third party, not Wheeler, was responsible. Evidence that a third party committed the crime for which the defendant is charged may be presented through the testimony of defense witnesses when there are sufficient indicia that the evidence is reliable. However, to be admissible, evidence proffered by the defense must `tend to indicate some reasonable possibility that a person other than the defendant committed the charged offense.' Gethers v. United States, 684 A.2d 1266, 1271 (D.C.1996) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 552 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989)); see also Winfield v. United States, 676 A.2d 1, 5 (D.C.1996) (en banc) (holding that mere proof of third-party motive to commit crime does not ordinarily create real possibility that third party was perpetrator, and that trial judge has discretion to exclude marginally relevant evidence that may distract jury from culpability of defendant). In Gethers, moreover, we emphasized that [none] of our prior decisions suggested that the third party could be a hypothetical person, i.e., an unidentified, unknown person with only generic reasons for committing the crime. 684 A.2d at 1271. Here, Wheeler argues that evidence of cocaine found on Taylor and the presence of drugs in his system would have shown that Taylor had a dangerous lifestyle and was at a high risk of violent death from [r]ival drug dealers, dissatisfied customers, or frustrated robbers. This argument fails to provide anything more than a hypothetical, unidentified person who may have had a motive to commit the murder. Id. [42]