Opinion ID: 2279771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Procedure For Admission

Text: Finally, Devonshire argues that the trial court erred in admitting the statements without affording him an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he procured Ms. Harmon's unavailability. He contends that the trial court improperly determined the issue solely by proffer. Devonshire raised this claim for the first time on appeal; therefore, we review for plain error. See Daniels v. United States, 613 A.2d 342, 347 n. 11 (D.C.1992). Against that standard, we find no basis for reversal. See Watts v. United States, 362 A.2d 706, 709 (D.C.1976) (en banc) (Plain error is error so prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial.). In this case, the trial court had before it, and relied upon, the evidence presented at several days of motions hearings in addition to the government's proffer. We have often allowed trial judges to decide evidentiary issues without requiring an evidentiary hearing. For example, a proffer of evidence is the means by which the government establishes the predicate for admitting other crimes evidence. See Daniels, supra, 613 A.2d at 347. We also allow the defense to initially proceed by proffer in order to establish the predicates for admitting evidence that some other person committed the charged offense, see Winfield v. United States, 676 A.2d 1 (D.C.1996) (en banc), and to establish that the mandatory conditions exist to begin the process by which the defense seeks to obtain immunity for a prospective defense witness. See Carter v. United States, 684 A.2d 331, 344 (D.C. 1996) (en banc). We do not need to decide here whether the proffer alone would be sufficient because the trial court considered both the proffer and the evidence that had been presented during the other hearings. [9] That evidence and the uncontested proffer adequately informed the trial court's decision and fails to disclose any plain error. Accordingly, the convictions of appellants are affirmed except for the conviction of appellant Devonshire for first degree felony murder; with respect to that conviction, the case is remanded for vacation of the conviction and sentence. Remanded in part, affirmed in part.