Court Opinion

ID: 9694348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:38:30.834198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:59.882721
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, appellants William Guzman and Louis Bolanos were each convicted of two counts of rape while armed in violation of D.C.Code §§ 22-2801, -3202 (1996), and of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (PFCV), in violation of D.C.Code § 22-3204(b).1 On appeal, both appellants contend that the trial judge committed reversible error by admitting into evidence, over objection, testimony that appellants assaulted and beat the complaining witness approximately one week before the alleged rapes.
This contention is addressed in detail in Judge Reid’s lead opinion and in the concurring opinions of Judge Schwelb and Judge Ruiz. A majority of the court believes that the evidence of the beating was relevant to the issue whether the sexual contact between appellants and the complaining witness was consensual, as appellants claimed, or rape, as the prosecutor contended. The court is also of the opinion that, even if the strictures of Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 331 F.2d 85 (1964), and Roper v. United States, 564 A.2d 726, 731 (D.C.1989), apply to this case2, the requirements of these decisions have been satisfied.
The court unanimously holds that, for the reasons stated in the lead opinion by Judge Reid, none of the remaining contentions presented by either appellant warrants reversal *534of any of the convictions. Accordingly, the judgments appealed from are

Affirmed.

. Each appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of fifteen to forty-five years in prison as a principal for the crime of armed rape, and ten to thirty years in prison as an aider and abettor of that offense. Each man was also sentenced to a concurrent sentence of five to fifteen years for PFCV, with a mandatory minimum term of five years.

. As to the question whether the contested evidence was subject to Drew analysis, compare the concurring opinions of Judge Reid, post at 534-41, Judge Schwelb, post at 541-42, and Judge Ruiz, post at 542-47.