## Facts

- After midnight on December 12, 2000, Melvin L. High shot and killed his childhood friend, Lamar Gaither, firing fifteen times outside High’s house.
- Earlier that day, High spent time with Gaither and Gaither’s cousin, Odell Smallwood; the group drove around while drinking alcohol and using marijuana.
- The group visited High’s adult stepsister, Angela Nivens; Gaither went upstairs with Nivens for about 20–25 minutes.
- When Gaither returned, High appeared upset; as the group left, High saw Nivens kiss Gaither on the cheek.
- High argued with Gaither about Gaither’s interaction with Nivens and continued arguing as the evening progressed.
- Forensic and eyewitness evidence linked High to the shooting, including ammunition-related evidence connecting bullets from the scene to ammunition associated with High.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder while armed when the evidence did not support legally “adequate provocation.”
2. If the voluntary manslaughter instruction was erroneous, whether the error was harmless.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding defense expert testimony challenging the scientific validity of “bunter mark” comparisons used to link bullets to a box of ammunition.

## Decision

- The court held the voluntary manslaughter instruction was given in error because the record lacked sufficient evidence of legally adequate provocation to support a heat-of-passion theory.
- The court affirmed the voluntary manslaughter conviction because the instructional error was harmless.
- The court upheld the exclusion of the defense expert, concluding the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding the witness unqualified on firearms/toolmark comparison and that the testimony risked confusing the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A voluntary manslaughter instruction requires evidence permitting a reasonable jury to find the defendant acted in the heat of passion induced by legally adequate provocation, assessed under an objective “reasonable person” standard.
- Giving an unsupported lesser-included offense instruction can be harmless where it does not prejudice the defendant and operates to the defendant’s benefit by providing a route to a lesser conviction.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony, including assessing qualifications and excluding opinions likely to confuse the jury; appellate review is highly deferential.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the voluntary manslaughter instruction should not have been given absent adequate provocation evidence, but it affirmed the conviction because the error was harmless, and it also affirmed the trial court’s discretionary exclusion of the defense’s proposed ballistics expert testimony.


High v. United States, 972 A.2d 829 (D.C. 2009)