Opinion ID: 2074633
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Mr Ford's Confession

Text: Mr. Ford contends that [t]he government improperly introduced [his] purported confession at trial. The introduction was improper, he claims, because the purported confession was admitted into evidence during the impeachment of Anna Boxley-Davis with her grand jury testimony, but since she repudiated that testimony, she was unavailable for cross-examination, and [h]er prior testimony was therefore hearsay. He argues, furthermore, it violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Ms. Boxley-Davis told the grand jury that on the day of Mr. Wynn's murder, Mr. Ford came to her home and said, I had to do it, I had to do it, Anna Boxley. When Ms. Boxley-Davis asked what he had to do, Mr. Ford replied, I had to kill him because he jumped out there. The government maintains that the admission of the confession was not improper because Ms. Boxley-Davis was available for full cross-examination at trial. We review Mr. Ford's constitutional claim de novo. See Newby v. United States, 797 A.2d 1233, 1239 (D.C.2002). We review his evidentiary claim, that the trial court improperly admitted the confession under D.C.Code § 14-102 (2001), for abuse of discretion. The record shows that the government granted immunity to Ms. Boxley-Davis. Therefore, she was available for cross-examination by counsel for Mr. Ford. Counsel decided not to cross-examine her, apparently for tactical reasons, since cross-examination might open up other parts of Ms. Boxley-Davis' grand jury testimony that were unfavorable to Mr. Ford. In short, Mr. Ford was presented with the opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Boxley-Davis, and that is all that was constitutionally required, or mandated under D.C.Code § 14-102(b). See Carey v. United States, 647 A.2d 56, 59 (D.C.1994); see also McConnaughey, supra, 804 A.2d at 339-40; Bell v. United States, 790 A.2d 523, 528-29 (D.C.2002); Sparks v. United States, 755 A.2d 394, 399-400 (D.C.2000). Moreover, we see no abuse of discretion in the admission of the testimony under § 14-102.