Opinion ID: 1968444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Bright's Other Contentions

Text: Bright's other contentions have no merit. He complains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the absence of evidence of motive was a factor to be weighed in his favor. However, the trial court instructed the jury, inter alia, that while the Government is not required to prove motive, ... evidence of motive or absence of proof of motive can be considered by you in deciding whether the Government has proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. He argues that the testimony of Donald Johnson should have been precluded because the government said prior to trial that it would introduce no other crimes evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Johnson's testimony because it was direct and substantial proof of the charged crime. Johnson, supra, 683 A.2d at 1098. Bright does not have standing to raise a Fifth Amendment challenge in behalf of his brother, Charles Mayberry, who testified as a government witness, and indicated that he did not see his brother on the day of the murders. [A] defendant does not have standing to complain of an erroneous ruling on the scope of the privilege of a witness. Ellis v. United States, 135 U.S.App. D.C. 35, 42, 416 F.2d 791, 799 (1969). We also reject Bright's argument that the evidence was insufficient to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of ammunition possession. The .38 round of ammunition was found on the bookshelf in the living room of the Providence Street apartment where Bright slept. Belzer, who also occupied the apartment on Providence Street, testified that the ammunition was not his and that no one else brought guns or ammunition into the apartment. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as we must, we conclude that reasonable jurors could reasonably infer that Bright constructively possessed the live round of ammunition found on the bookshelf in his sleeping quarters. See Guishard v. United States, 669 A.2d 1306, 1312 (D.C. 1995) (citations omitted). Finally, because Detective Mayberry testified that Bright had told him his brother dropped him off at his mother's house before the time of the murders, Bright maintains that he was entitled to an alibi instruction. Neither Bright nor his mother testified at trial. Moreover, the fact that he may have been dropped at his mother's house three hours prior to the murders, does not establish an alibi at the time of the murders. [T]he alibi instruction is appropriate only when the defense evidence demonstrates the defendant's presence elsewhere for the entire period of time the government's evidence shows he was involved in criminal activity. Greenhow v. United States, 490 A.2d 1130, 1134 (D.C.1985) (citations omitted). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse Bright's conviction on ammunition possession and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects. So ordered.