Court Opinion

ID: 9694349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:38:30.83935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:59.887361
License: Public Domain

REID, Associate Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I join in the judgment of affirmance. After a short factual introduction, in Part LA. of my concurring opinion, I set forth the factual basis essential to an understanding of the prior beating issue. In Part I.B., I address the precise ruling of the trial court that is before us, that M.A.’s brief reference to the prior beating was admissible to explain why M.A. gave a recanting statement to Guzman’s attorney. In Part I.C., I conclude that even assuming the brief reference to the prior beating was subject to Drew analysis, the trial court conducted the required Drew inquiry. In Part II., I focus on the other issues presented by the case.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
In December 1993, complaining witness M.A., then seventeen years of age, lived in an apartment located at 1515 Ogden. Street, N.W. in the District of Columbia. She resided there with approximately ten other young people, all under the age of seventeen. After school on December 15, 1993, M.A. returned to the apartment; only two of the occupants were present — C.A. and C.H.
Soon Guzman, Bolanos, and another male arrived at the apartment, talking loudly and carrying bottles of beer. They wanted to talk with the young women in private. When M.A. and C.A. refused, Bolanos dragged M.A. into the dressing room or closet and attempted to force her to drink some beer. Guzman joined Bolanos and MA. in the dressing room, pulled out a bat or stick and laid it on the ironing table. Bolanos pulled out a BB gun and threatened M.A. with it. The third male, J.M., grabbed a stick from under a bed and stood in front of the dressing room door to prevent anyone from entering. C.A. could hear M.A. “screaming and calling for [C.H.].” C.H. tried to get into the dressing room when he heard M.A. yelling, but J.M. threatened to beat him. Eventually, J.M. went into the dressing room holding the stick, and helped Guzman and Bolanos drag M.A. into the bathroom. He then stood guard outside the bathroom door with the stick.
Bolanos placed the BB gun on top of the toilet tank, removed his pants and underwear, and proceeded to rape M.A. while she cried and banged on the door. He penetrated M.A.’s vaginal wall. Bolanos switched places with Guzman who dropped his pants and underwear, and began to rape M.A. During her trial testimony, M.A. stated that “when [Guzman] was already inside [her],” the police arrived at the apartment, in response to C.A.’s call. They heard cries and screams coming from a back room that was locked. They banged on the bathroom door. As the police entered the bathroom, Guzman told M.A. in Spanish, “say that this had happened before and that [I] was related to one of them and that this was a normal thing that [we] did in this game.” When he looked at the scene inside the bathroom, Officer David Gaither saw Guzman and Bolanos “sweating” and “laughing.” They did not have on pants. M.A. was “screaming, her face was red, she didn’t ... have any pants on.” A “handgun” was on top of the toilet.
When the officers took M.A. into the kitchen to speak with her, she was afraid and scared to talk until a female officer took over the questioning. Subsequently, she was taken to the hospital for examination. Dr. Timothy McElrath, then an intern at D.C. General Hospital, examined M.A. He saw bruises on parts of her upper torso, but “no signs of trauma” in the pelvic area. He stated that it was “not unusual in a woman who has experienced recent vaginal intercourse, nonconsen-tually, to have no signs of bleeding, tearing, [or] bruising to the genital area.” In addition, he declared that “the lack of trauma doesn’t necessarily preclude sexual assault.”
ANALYSIS
I.
I turn first to Guzman and Bolanos’s contention that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of uncharged misconduct, the beating of M.A. by Guzman and Bolanos that allegedly took place one week before the *535armed rape. The government presented two theories concerning the admissibility of this evidence. First, the prior beating could be introduced to show M.A.’s state of mind as to whether she consented to the sexual encounter with Guzman and Bolanos. Second, the prior beating could be used to explain why M.A. had given a recanting statement to Guzman’s attorney. The government asserted that the first theory involved Drew1 evidence, but that the second theory did not implicate Drew.
A.
The factual basis for the issue of the prior beating is important to my analysis. During the pretrial hearing on motions, the trial court considered the government’s written notice of intent to introduce other crimes evidence. Government counsel informed the trial court that:
The evidence we would seek to introduce is specifically that one week, perhaps eight days before the rape, the complainant inside the same apartment as the rape took place was confronted by the two defendants ....
She was seated on a couch.... Our evidence would be that Mr. Bolanos took the large, light-colored stick ... from Mr. Guzman’s hand and ... struck [M.A.]_
[M.A.] will not be able to say with certainty how many times Mr. Bolanos struck her but she estimates two....
This was done in the presence of Mr. Guzman. An eyewitness will testify that Mr. Guzman also struck [M.A.] perhaps once or twice ... [w]ith a stick. However, the complainant is uncertain as to that. By that time she had already been struck several times.
The prior beating would be used to show M.A.’s state of mind, said government counsel. As the government stated:
[W]hen the defense does something in the trial to make the lack of consent or consent a genuine contested issue, at that point the government should have leave to introduce this evidence on the question of consent. That could take place in opening statement or in cross-examination.
When the trial judge asked “if [the defense] sought to impeach [M.A] with her ... recanting of her claim that it was rape, ... would [the government] use it at that point to explain her fear[,]” government counsel indicated that the prior beating would not be used to show the defendants’ intent.
The trial court summarized its understanding of the government’s position:
I just want to make sure — you said three grounds.... You’ve withdrawn the one about the defendant^]’ intent. So we’re left with [M.A.’s] state of mind regarding if the issue of consent becomes a contested issue and if she’s impeached in terms of an explanation of her ... alleged fear.
The government added its view that “a mini trial in advance to determine the strength of the Drew evidence” would not be necessary because “it [would] come in at least through [M.A.] and one eyewitness and possibly two eyewitnesses.”
Counsel for Mr. Guzman took the position that the prior beating “doesn’t fit under any of the [Drew] exceptions because those exceptions are limited to evidence that’s relevant to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense.” He maintained that the evidence of the prior beating would be used improperly to show propensity to commit the crime of armed rape. The government denied that the evidence would be used to show propensity, but agreed that the prior beating did not “fit in with a traditional Drew exception.” Nonetheless, the government contended, “Drew itself says that the list [of exceptions] is not exclusive, any legitimate evidentiary purpose [is acceptable].” The government acknowledged that no Drew exception had been carved out to show the complainant’s state of mind based upon a defendant’s prior criminal conduct.
Counsel for Bolanos contended that consent to the rape was not an issue, and thus, the government should not be allowed to introduce the prior beating as evidence. When the trial judge pressed him as to his views on the government’s second theory, *536that the prior beating could be used to explain M.A.’s recanting statement to Guzman’s counsel, Bolanos’s counsel said the prior beating should not be admitted for that purpose because of its prejudicial nature.
Government counsel then made it clear that the prior beating would be used “to try to take the sting out [of the recanting statement] in [thel direct [testimony of M.A.].” Counsel for Guzman responded, ‘Tour Hon- or, I have no objection to [the government’s] request,” whereas counsel for Bolanos expressed an unreadiness to state a position until he had an opportunity to read applicable case law.
While the trial court reserved its final decision on the consent issue until trial, it indicated that testimony regarding the prior assault would be allowed to explain the reason for the recanting statement:
[T]he impeachment and explanation ... I would not preclude_ I think that that’s allowed and would be — could be a perfectly good emanation for it. And I think generally you — you do an analysis of probative versus prejudicial.... I don’t think you have to do a Drew analysis for an explanation. As long as you’re not going [to allow] any independent evidence coming in, which I wouldn’t do.
So, in other words, eyewitnesses don’t come in and testify about it.... [I]f she chooses to do so, to give this explanation of why she recanted, [that will be permitted], not other eyewitnesses explaining or testifying independently to what they observed as this alleged assault.
So the only thing that would come out in the ease in chief would be, as I said, ... her explanation for recanting her testimony. .
Prior to the commencement of the trial, the trial judge revisited the issue of the prior beating and the government’s theories of admissibility: (1) to explain why M.A. gave a recanting statement to Guzman’s attorney and (2) to show M.A.’s state of mind with respect to the issue of consent. With regard to the first theory, the trial judge again recognized that the government might attempt to take the sting out of the recanting statement by way of explanation during M.A.’s direct testimony. The court permitted this approach but cautioned the government: “[0]n the issue of recantation, I think you could do it over the objection of the defendants ... [but] just be mindful that it be clear that there is some criminal conduct on [the defendants’] part.” As to the second government theory concerning consent and M.A.’s state of mind, the trial court again reserved a final ruling until the record at trial established that consent would be an issue.
In his opening statement, counsel for Guzman began with the theme that M.A. consented to having sex with Guzman: “On December 15, 1993, [M.A.] agreed to have sex with William Guzman. And that day, Mr. Guzman did not force, threaten or coerce her to have sex with him.” Bolanos’s counsel made no remarks in his opening statement concerning the issue of consent.
M.A. was called as the government’s first witness. Near the end of her testimony, the government asked questions relating to her recanting statement to Guzman’s counsel. M.A. admitted telling defense counsel that “everything that had happened was a lie,” that what she “had told [the assistant U.S. attorney] was a lie and that what [she] was telling him [Guzman’s counsel] was the truth. But, really, what [she] was telling him was not the truth.” The following exchange then took place:
[Government Counsel]: Then why did you say it?
[M.AJ: Because I was seared.
[Government Counsel]: What were you scared of?
[M.A.]: That probably the same thing that when — like, a week before I was raped, I was beaten up by the same guys with bats—
Counsel for Bolanos objected, and counsel for both Guzman and Bolanos asked to approach the bench. The trial court refused their request, saying, “[W]e have discussed this numerous times. You can do follow-up questions.”
*537The government posed no additional questions pertaining to the prior beating, but focused on the reason for M.A.’s meeting with Guzman’s counsel. In response to questioning by government counsel, M.A. explained that Guzman’s brother came to the area of her school, started crying and asked her “to reject the case” against his brother. Thereafter, he came to her school “every other day” to make the same request. Guzman’s brother went to the school on February 3, 1994, with Bolanos’s father and asked M.A. to accompany them to Guzman’s lawyer’s office. M.A. stated: “I was so scared, I knew not what to do, I went on with them [to Mr. Puig-Lugo’s office].”
At the end of M.A’s direct testimony, government counsel posed a question to determine whether M.A. willingly had sex with Guzman and Bolanos on the day of the alleged rape. She responded in the negative. At the conclusion of this testimony, counsel for Bolanos requested a bench conference and said to the trial judge:
I need some help. There is something I missed in understanding whether the Court has reached a ruling or something, where I missed it. I must have been asleep at the helm. I thought you had not ruled on that evidence as to whether the prior matter came in.
The trial court responded:
[I]t could come in on the issue of ... why she was afraid and why she recanted her explanations, period.
Without a lot of detail ... [w]hich is exactly the way it’s come in. What I reserved was ruling on the issue of consent, in terms of it coming in ... on whether she would have acquiesced or not....
Counsel for Bolanos said: “That’s what I needed to hear.” Counsel for Guzman wanted to be certain that M.A. was testifying as to only one prior beating. After counsel for the government confirmed that there was only one prior beating of which the government was aware, the trial court told defense counsel:
I think ... you can decide whether you want to follow up with that- You decide how much you want to open up the door in terms of [government counsel] putting on independent evidence going into a lot more detail. I reserved that on the issue of consent.
After a brief recess, the trial court added:
I thought I had indicated ... in the context of the way it was coming in because we were not getting any independent evidence, that — that it was more probative than prejudicial. And then I thought where you’ve got such a key document as this recantation .:. that it seemed to me, in that context, it was important to come out.
The trial court then made it clear that no definitive ruling had been made on the issue of consent, but that it remained to be determined how to handle the matter if it came out on redirect testimony, rather than in rebuttal.
On cross-examination, Guzman’s counsel questioned M.A. extensively regarding her visitation to his office, her recanting statement, and the alleged inconsistencies between her prior statements and her trial testimony regarding the alleged rape and events leading up to the rape. He queried her as to whether her bruises actually resulted from a fight with girls at a party, rather than from any prior beating by Guzman or Bolanos.
On the following day of the trial, before government counsel conducted redirect examination of M.A., the trial judge again addressed the issue of the prior beating, and spent substantial time discussing with counsel whether the prior beating could be presented as evidence showing M.A was coerced into having sex with Guzman and Bolanos. The trial judge made a preliminary determination that evidence of the prior beating could come in on the issue of consent only if the defense made consent a contested issue during the presentation of its evidence. When it became clear that neither defendant would testify and the defense would present no substantive evidence on the question of consent, government counsel said she “would ... not be asking to present evidence of the prior beating because of the court’s ruling.” Accordingly, the government never present*538ed independent evidence of the prior beating; nor did it seek to develop M.A.’s brief reference to the prior beating. Nonetheless, Guzman and Bolanos insist that M.A.’s brief reference to the prior beating constituted Drew evidence designed to show propensity to commit the crime of armed rape.
B.
On the record before us, I cannot say that the trial judge abused her discretion in allowing M.A.’s limited testimony on direct examination of the prior beating to explain why she gave a recanting statement to Guzman’s attorney.
The trial court allowed M.A. to refer to the prior beating in a limited fashion during her direct testimony, not as substantive evidence, but to explain why she recanted her account of the rape.2 The brief reference to the prior beating was not substantive evidence, but was designed to take the sting out of the recantation with which the defense planned to impeach her. This situation is analogous to our approach in Reed v. United States, 452 A.2d 1173 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 839, 104 S.Ct. 132, 78 L.Ed.2d 127 (1983) where we said that: “[A]ny party is entitled ‘to bring out on direct examination damaging information about ... his witness, ... ’ ” 452 A.2d at 1179 (citation omitted). We further stated: “The government’s ... purpose in eliciting on direct examination of its witnesses that they had made statements inconsistent with their trial testimony was to ‘take the sting out’ of anticipated impeachment of the witnesses by the defense.” Id.
Before allowing the brief reference to the prior beating as an explanation of M.A.’s recantation, the trial judge made a determination that the probative value of the explanation was not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Johnson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1087, 1090 (D.C. 1996) (en banc). Moreover, appellants had an adequate opportunity to question M.A. about her recantation. During cross-examination of M.A., Guzman’s counsel posed extensive questions about M.A.’s recanting statement, pointing out the inconsistencies between her trial testimony and her recanting statement.
In summary, my review of the record before us shows that the reference to the prior beating did not come in as substantive evidence; its probative value was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice; and appellants had an adequate opportunity to question M.A. about her recanting statement. Thus, I cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing limited testimony of the prior beating to explain M.A.’s recanting statement.
In her concurring opinion, Judge Ruiz fails to focus on the precise rulings made by the trial judge with respect to the prior beating. The trial judge assumed that M.A. would be impeached with her recantation, and thus, first ruled that so long as M.A.’s reference to the prior beating was more probative than prejudicial, evidence of the prior beating could come in as an explanation of M.A.’s recantation. Second, the judge ruled that, if independent evidence of the prior beating was introduced in the government’s case in chief, or if the defendants testified or the defense presented evidence regarding consent, the court would rule that the evidence of the prior beating would come in with respect to the issue of consent. The trial court never formally made the second ruling because no independent or substantive evidence concerning the prior beating was introduced either by the government or the defense.
I believe that Judge Ruiz rejects the trial court’s approach without a complete understanding of the first ruling formally made in this ease with respect to the prior beating. Moreover, she appears to assume that any prior bad act must necessarily be regarded, in the first instance, as Drew “other crimes” evidence, regardless of the way in which it is used or introduced at trial. This viewpoint runs counter to our case law. “Drew ‘restricts the introduction ... of an accused’s prior crimes or bad acts’ ‘as substantive evidence....’ ” Samuels v. United States, supra note 2, 605 A.2d at 597 (quoting Sherer v. United States, 470 A.2d 732, 738 n. 5 (D.C. 1983) (emphasis in original)). The prior *539beating was not introduced as substantive evidence. Rather, what the trial judge recognized was that M.A.’s recantation could be used to impeach her, and thus, the government could “take the sting” out of the recantation by having her explain the recantation through a brief reference to the prior beating. In short, the prior beating was not used to impeach, but to fend off or explain what undoubtedly would have been a defense effort to impeach M.A. with her recantation. I am aware of nothing in Drew or our subsequent eases which would preclude the precise use of the prior beating allowed in this case.
C.
Even assuming that the brief reference to the prior beating was subject to Drew analysis, I am satisfied that the trial court conducted the required pretrial Drew inquiry before finally excluding the use of the prior beating as substantive evidence. In Daniels v. United States, 613 A.2d 342 (D.C.1992), we said:
The trial court may act within its discretion to conduct its pretrial inquiry on the admissibility of the other crimes evidence by means of a “detailed proffer from the government” instead of holding, in effect, a bench trial of the other crime, which presumably will be fully replicated before the jury if admitted.
Id. at 347 (citation omitted). Here, the government made a detailed proffer of M.A.’s testimony concerning the prior beating and indicated that it would also present one or two independent witnesses to the incident.
In Roper v. United States, 564 A.2d 726 (D.C.1989), we recognized “four specific requirements for the admission of other crimes evidence”:
(1) there must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the other offense; (2) the other crimes evidence must be directed to a genuine, material and contested issue in the ease; (3) the evidence must be logically relevant to prove this issue for a reason other than its power to demonstrate criminal propensity; and (4) the evidence must be more probative than prejudicial.
Id. at 731 (citations omitted). The trial court addressed each of these requirements. First, the trial court determined that it “would be inclined to find there’s clear and convincing evidence” of the prior beating based on the testimony of M.A. and based on the government’s proffer that independent witnesses would testify about the prior beating. This determination was made only after the trial court listened to M.A.’s testimony both on direct examination and cross-examination, and found her testimony credible. Second, the court determined that if the defense made consent a contested issue, the prior beating would be relevant to M.A.’s state of mind regarding the issue of consent.3 Third, the court concluded that the prior beating would not be used to show criminal propensity of the defendants, but would be introduced to show the state of mind of the complainant on the issue of consent. Fourth, the court determined that while the evidence of the prior beating was prejudicial, its probative value was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice. The judge indicated that she would attempt to limit the prejudice and was open to suggestions by counsel as to how to accomplish the limitation. Ultimately, of course, the defense decided not to make consent a contested issue, and substantive evidence of the beating did not come in. Furthermore, even assuming that M.A.’s limited testimony of the prior beating constituted other crimes evidence, neither Bolanos nor Guzman requested a limiting or a curative instruction. Based on the record before us, I conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reaching a preliminary decision — after applying the pretrial inquiry factors set forth in Roper—that substantive evidence of the *540prior beating could be admitted if independent evidence of the prior beating was introduced in the government’s ease in chief, or if the defendants testified or presented evidence regarding consent.
II.
Appellants’ other arguments are discussed briefly. Guzman contends that the trial court’s jury instruction constructively amended the indictment with respect to the armed rape charge, because the indictment charged rape “while armed with a stick and a firearm” and the judge instructed the jury that appellants could be “armed with” the weapons or have had them “readily available.” Further, he argues, the trial court erred in imposing a mandatory minimum sentence for armed rape.
Guzman maintains that our decision in (Phillip) Johnson v. United States, 686 A.2d 200 (D.C.1996), compels the conclusion that the jury instruction constructively amended the indictment. We disagree. (Phillip) Johnson dealt only with the issue of mandatory minimum sentence for persons committing certain crimes while armed. There we said that “[t]o receive a mandatory minimum sentence, a single perpetrator must actually have been ‘armed’; it is not enough for this purpose that the defendant had a gun ‘readily available.’ ” Id. at 204 (citation and internal quotation omitted). Contrary to Guzman’s position, (Philip) Johnson does not apply to situations other than mandatory minimum sentencing. Moreover, the mandatory minimum term was imposed only with respect to the possession charge, not the armed robbery charge. The trial court distinguished between “while armed” and' “readily available” only in the context of instructing the jury as to the elements of the old armed rape law. The court properly instructed the jury that they need not find appellants were actually armed with the stick or firearm while the rape was in progress, but that it would be sufficient if they found the stick or firearm readily available to appellants at the time of the rape. This instruction was consistent with our decision in (Alfred) Johnson v. United States, 613 A.2d 888, 897 (D.C.1992). We see no error.
Guzman’s argument that the government failed to prove sexual penetration, a required element of rape, is without merit. M.A. testified that after Bolanos had finished raping her, Guzman “pulled down his clothes, too—his pants and underwear completely. And he started to rape me. And when he was already inside of me, the cops arrived.” Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, see Patterson v. United States, 479 A.2d 335, 337-38 (D.C. 1984), reasonable jurors could find that the reference to “when he was already inside of me” was sufficient to satisfy the element of sexual penetration. See Williams v. United States, 357 A.2d 865, 866 (D.C.1976); Holmes v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 169, 171 F.2d 1022, 1023 (1948).
Both Guzman and Bolanos challenge their convictions on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to allow full exploration of M.A.’s status as a person in need of supervision (PINS). The trial court reviewed M.A.’s PINS jacket in camera and concluded that it dealt primarily with family neglect of M.A. and her “community placement” rather than with her moral turpitude or dishonesty. Nonetheless, the trial court permitted defense counsel to cross-examine M.A. regarding her bias, credibility, and lifestyle. Based on the record before us, we see no abuse of discretion. See Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 151 (D.C.1986); Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d 846, 854 (D.C.1978).
Finally, Bolanos contends that the trial court erred in precluding his questions regarding the use of cocaine by M.A. His defense counsel raised the issue as follows:
It is my understanding that [M.A.] participated in the use of cocaine in this apartment on frequent occasions. This is relevant to her ability to observe and recollect with accuracy. It’s relevant to her state of mind and her psyche. I make this statement on information and belief. I do not have a witness who can appear and say, I saw her use. On that basis, what is the Court’s ruling?
The trial judge asked what evidence counsel planned to present, and further inquired: *541“You have no one who is going to indicate that she would have used it during the period of time in question or shortly beforehand?” Defense counsel responded: “That’s right.” The judge indicated she would disallow questions about cocaine use unless they related to a period shortly before the crimes charged. Defense counsel “proffer[ed] that [M.A.’s cocaine use] would [have] be[en] within the week of the 8th to the 15th of December.” The trial court viewed the time frame as “too distant” and did not allow the questions. Defense counsel raised no objection to the court’s final ruling.
In Rogers v. United States, 419 A.2d 977 (D.C.1980), we said: “The opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental right in our system of justice_ Nevertheless, regulation of the extent and scope of cross-examination lies with the discretion of a trial judge.” Id, at 981 (citations omitted). We also declared that:
Given the highly inflammatory nature of an allegation that a witness is a drug user, a trial court must exercise discretion concerning the proper scope of examination. Drug habits are generally a collateral issue unless an evidentiary foundation can be established that the witness was using drugs at the time of the incident.
Id. (citations omitted).
In this case, defense counsel stated he would present no witness who could say he or she saw M.A. using drugs. Even with the proffer that the use “would [have] be[en] within the week of the 8th to the 15th of December,” counsel had no witness who could establish that M.A. “was using drugs at the time of the incident.” On appeal he states, without foundation in the record, “that the defense was not allowed to ask about [M.A.’s] drug usage for the period of time involving the incident itself.” Without a proper evidentiary foundation for questions about M.A.’s drug use at the time of the incident, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in concluding that such questions would be more prejudicial than probative. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, I agree that the judgments of the trial court should be affirmed.

. Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 331 F.2d 85 (1964).

. See Samuels v. United States, 605 A.2d 596, 597 (D.C.1992).

. The trial court recognized that the use of the prior beating to show M.A.’s state of mind would not qualify under any traditional exception to Drew and would present a case of first impression in this jurisdiction. The court shared with counsel her research into the issue showing that other jurisdictions, including the state of Maryland, see Stevenson v. State, 94 Md.App, 715, 619 A.2d 155, 160-61 (1993), allowed other crimes evidence to counter a consent defense. Since the prior beating was excluded as substantive evidence because consent was not a contested issue, we need not address the Drew issue.