Opinion ID: 2087560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Grayton's search for gasoline

Text: Grayton maintains that the government should not have been allowed to introduce evidence that he was seen carrying a gasoline can near Ms. Jenkins' apartment shortly before the fire occurred and that he asked De Lante Adams, Jenkins' neighbor, for some gasoline. He asserts that this evidence was offered to show that he had a predisposition to commit the crime, and that it was prejudicial and irrelevant because the government's theory of the case was inconsistent with any inference that gasoline was used to start the fire. This argument is without merit. First, one of the government's experts, Detective Webster, testified that maybe a small amount of accelerant, such as gasoline, might have been used to start the fire (see note 7, supra ). More importantly, evidence that Grayton attempted to find a source of gasoline on the night in question was clearly relevant to his intent to start a fire in Jenkins' apartment, regardless of whether gasoline was actually used. See Williams v. United States, 283 A.2d 212, 213 (D.C.1971) (defendant's possession of a quart bottle containing gasoline, wrapped in a coat, along with a book of matches with the cover torn off, was sufficient in context to prove intent to burn a building even though no fire actually occurred); cf. United States v. Brooks, 146 U.S.App. D.C. 1, 8-9, 449 F.2d 1077, 1084-1085 (1971) (fact that murder defendant brought a shotgun to the scene of the crime was admissible to show premeditation, even though the crime was actually committed with a knife). Contrary to Grayton's argument, the government's theory of the case was not dependent on whether he used gasoline to start the fire. In fact, Detective Webster testified that the fire was most likely started by someone holding an open flame to the bed linens or to clothing on the bed. We therefore hold that the admission of evidence concerning the gasoline can was not reversible error. In light of Williams and Brooks, we are satisfied that the evidence was properly admitted; but even if it was not, its admission was surely harmless, given the strength of the government's case. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).