Opinion ID: 2258738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Same Gun Issue

Text: Mr. Adams' third contention is that the trial court erred when it allowed Donnell Diggins to testify that he had observed Mr. Adams carrying the same gun that was used to shoot Mr. Thomas, a .38 long nose, approximately two years before the shooting. [11] He argues that this testimony was too remote in time to be relevant, and that it served no purpose but to inflame and confuse the jury. We review this claim for plain error. See Watts v. United States, 362 A.2d 706, 709 (D.C.1976) ([E]rrors not objected to at trial are unreachable on review unless they fall within the purview of the plain error rule.). Plain error review permits us to grant a remedy where (1) there is error, (2) the error is plain, meaning `clear' or `obvious,' and (3) the error affected substantial rights. Baker v. United States, 867 A.2d 988, 1003 (D.C.2005) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). On this record, we conclude that the trial court did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte limit the government's direct examination of Donnell Diggins. In substance, Donnell Diggins testified that he observed Mr. Adams carrying the same weapon that was used to shoot Mr. Thomas two years before the shooting occurred. Through this testimony, the government sought to establish not only that Mr. Adams possessed the instrumentality used in the shooting, but to explain how Donnell Diggins was able to identify the weapon from such a great distance. [12] This court has previously held, however, that `an accused person's prior possession of the physical means of committing the crime is some evidence of the probability of his guilt, and is therefore admissible.' McConnaughey v. United States, 804 A.2d 334, 339 (D.C.2002) (quoting Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 710, 712 (D.C.1977)). While [i]t is true that [Donnell Diggins' testimony] established only a reasonable probability, and not a certainty, that [Mr. Adams] possessed the murder weapon, . . . this lack of certainty [goes] only to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Id. at 339. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not plainly err in admitting the challenged testimony. [13] See Burgess v. United States, 786 A.2d 561, 576 (D.C.2001).