Court Opinion

ID: 9750873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:43:18.958846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:39.191943
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion of Judge Sehwelb, except that a majority of the court does not adopt the discussion in Parts III-B. and III-C. (4) of Judge Schwelb’s opinion regarding the question whether the trial judge failed to comply with D.C.Code §§ 31-2704, -2711, and -2712 (1993). As to the interpretation of those provisions, the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion of Judge Reid, with whom Judge Mack joins. Specifically, a majority of the court holds that there was error in these respects, but not plain error. Judge Sehwelb would hold only that there was no plain error.

Affirmed.