U.S. v. Benton

download U.S. v. Benton

of 7

Transcript of U.S. v. Benton

  • 8/12/2019 U.S. v. Benton

    1/7

  • 8/12/2019 U.S. v. Benton

    2/7

    2

    This case surrounds the s}lblet o a house owned by Kunio and Marie Tanabe, locatedat 4306 Fessenden Street. Mr. and Ms. Tanabe (the homeowners ) rented the home toPatrick Auffret (the renter ), who in tum sublet the property to Steven Benton and TraceyAlston3 in September 1997.The government's evidence showed that Mr. Benton and Ms; Alston posed as BrentBell and Tracey Bell, a married couple, while negotiating the initial sublet arrangement withthe renter and a subsequent lease agreement directly with the homeowners. Appellantclaimed that his wife was depressed, their home in McClean, Virginia, had burned down, andthat they lost a young daughter in an automobile accident. Mr. Benton also claimed to be amember o the Foreign Service. Although several witnesses testified at trial, includingappellant's half-brother, there were no witnesses who could confirm Mr. Benton'sbackground.Upon entering the original sublet, the parties agreed that Mr. Auffret would leave hisfurniture and other belongings in the home until Mr. Benton and Ms. Alston (posing as Mr.and Mrs. Bell) acquired furniture o their own. Through a series o intentional delays, andeventually by changing the locks on the house, Mr. Benton and Ms. Alston prevented Mr.Auffret from retrieving much o his property, and refused to return his furniture. Mr. Bentontold one o the homeowners that he had purchased Mr. Auffret's furniture from him. As Mr.Auffret was preparing to notify the police about the situation, Mr. Benton was arrested anddetained in connection with an unrelated event. Mr. Benton and Ms. Alston were evictedduring the week o the arrest.Mr. Benton, who remained in detention, arranged for his half-brother to assist in thepacking and moving process from the house on Fessenden Street. Evidence produced at trial

    established that during the week o the move approximately twenty telephone calls to theFessenden Street home were placed from the facility where Mr. Benton was detained. Mr.Benton's half-brother testified that he spoke with appellant at least twice during the movingprocess, at which time Mr. Benton gave him instructions regarding what to pack. Numerousitems belonging to Mr. Auffret and several o the homeowners' air conditioning units weretaken during the move. A portion o Mr. Auffret's property was found in a Marylandapartment in Ms. Alston's possession approximately one month later.N LYSIS

    Mr. Benton primarily contends that the trial court impermissibly admitted evidenceat his trial concerning: (1) the fact o his prior arrest on an unrelated matter, (2) governmentwitnesses' awareness that detectives were searching for him, and (3) the fact that histelephone calls to the Fessenden Street home during the week o the move were placed froma detention facility. Mr. Benton argues that the prejudicial effect o the evidencesubstantially outweighed its limited probative value.

    3 Ms. Alston, originally a co-defendant in this case, is not a party to this appeal.

  • 8/12/2019 U.S. v. Benton

    3/7

  • 8/12/2019 U.S. v. Benton

    4/7

    4Finally, a detective indicated that items belonging to Mr. Auffret were found in a Marylandapartment where Ms. Alston was discovered hiding in a closet.

    With respect to steps taken to mitigate the effects of the alleged error, the trial courtoffered defense counsel an opportunity to craft a limiting instruction, but counsel did nothingin response. Nevertheless, the trial court gave two cautionary instructions related to thearrest evidence, including the following final instruction to the jury:You have heard evidence that Mr. Benton was arrested inJanuary 1998. Evidence of the defendant's arrest has beenadmitted solely to put in context other evidence concerning theevents in January 1998. You should not speculate about thereasons for that arrest. The fact that the defendant was arrested

    is not evidence that the defendant is guilty of the offenses withwhich he is charged in this case. You must not draw anyinferences of guilt against the defendant from his prior arrest.As we have reiterated on several occasions, [t]he jury is presumed to have followedthe trial court's instructions. Davis v United States 700 A.2d 229,232 (D.C. 1997) (citingHarris v United States 602 A.2d 154, 165 (D.C. 1992); Owens v United States 497 A.2d1086, 1092 n.7 (D.C. 1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1085 (1986)). Thus, given the strengthof the government's case and the trial court's efforts to mitigate the potentially prejudicialeffect of the arrest evidence, we are persuaded that the alleged error (admitting evidence ofMr. Benton's prior arrest, awareness of witnesses that detectives were searching for Mr.Benton, and Mr. Benton's telephone calls from the detention center to the Fessenden Streethome) did not substantially sway the jury's verdict n this case. We conclude, therefore, thatthe alleged error was harmless in its effect.

    Mr. Benton also contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence indicatingthat he misrepresented his identity and background to Mr. Auffret and the homeowners. Hedeems this evidence to be impermissible character evidence of intent, or other crimesevidence of intent. He maintains that since he did not testify and his counsel did not makean opening statement or raise the issue of intent on cross-examination of the government'switnesses, admission ofevidence relating to any misrepresentations ofhis background wasirrelevant and impermissible. Even assuming it was relevant, he argues, its probative valueis substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact.As the government points out, Mr. Benton's claim is subject to plain error reviewbecause his counsel failed to object to the admission of the evidence at trial.7 Under this

    7 During oral argument, Mr. Benton conceded that the plain error standard applied.But, in a subsequent letter to the court, with a copy to the government, counsel for Mr.Benton stated that his concession was premised upon the possibility that the court coulddecide, in line with the government's argument, thatthe evidence ofmisrepresentation wasnot impermissible character evidence. Counsel added: Ofcourse, the appellant maintains,as represented in the argument-in-chief and the supplemental brief, that the evidence of( continued .. )

  • 8/12/2019 U.S. v. Benton

    5/7

  • 8/12/2019 U.S. v. Benton

    6/7

  • 8/12/2019 U.S. v. Benton

    7/7