Opinion ID: 2081827
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The court's post-argument order.

Text: For the foregoing reasons, Holmes' statements to Ms. Sudler were not admissible under either of the hearsay exceptions on which the government relies on appeal. In the government's brief on the merits, its sole theory of harmless error was that the statement was admissible under one or both of these exceptions. Further, the government did not initially assert that the erroneous admission of these statements would be harmless. Under these circumstances the judge's ruling that the statements were admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception was arguably prejudicial rather than harmless error, and this was true as to both defendants. Nevertheless, the government's failure to assert that any error was harmless does not necessarily and conclusively end the matter. D.C.Code § 11-721(e) (2001) provides: On the hearing of any appeal in any case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The command of D.C.Code [] § 11-721(e) is that we disregard any nonconstitutional error which does not affect a substantial right of the accused. Arnold v. United States, 358 A.2d 335, 341 (D.C.1976) (en banc). Similarly, Rule 52(a) of the Superior Court's Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: Harmless error. Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. At the conclusion of oral argument, it was not at all clear to the court, especially as to Stewart, whether the error in admitting the hearsay statement affect[ed] substantial rights within the meaning of § 11-721(e) and Rules 52(a), or whether reversal was warranted in light of the phrasing of these provisions. Accordingly, and after careful consideration, we ordered the parties to file supplemental post-argument submissions addressing essentially the following questions: 1. whether the government has waived any claim that the error in admitting Ms. Sudler's testimony regarding Mr. Holmes' out-of-court statement was harmless; 2. if so, whether this court has the authority, notwithstanding the government's waiver, to rule that the error was harmless; and 3. if this court has such authority, whether we should exercise it here and hold that the error was in fact harmless in this case. We turn now to the issues addressed in counsel's post-argument submissions.