## Facts

- Nakia A. Roy and Edward Settles engaged in a dispute involving Nacheta Harris, Roy’s former girlfriend and the mother of his child, who later dated Settles.
- On the day of the incident, Roy approached Harris and Settles on a public street, struck Harris, and chased Settles while firing multiple shots.
- The confrontation continued and escalated into an exchange of gunfire between Roy and Settles in a residential area.
- An innocent bystander, Grace Edwards, was fatally shot during the gun battle.
- Roy and Settles were jointly tried before a jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
- Settles was convicted of second-degree murder, assault with a dangerous weapon (two counts), possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (PFDCV), and carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL).
- Roy was convicted of second-degree murder, assault with a dangerous weapon (four counts), PFDCV (five counts), CPWL, and simple assault.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying severance of the jointly tried defendants.
2. Whether the murder causation instructions misstated the law or allowed conviction on a theory that constructively amended the charge.
3. Whether the admission of certain out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause.
4. Whether challenged evidentiary exclusions were erroneous and, if so, prejudicial.
5. Whether multiple PFDCV convictions (and related counts) were duplicative and required merger for purposes of conviction and sentencing.

## Decision

- The court affirmed all of Settles’s convictions.
- The court affirmed Roy’s convictions except it vacated certain PFDCV convictions as duplicative under merger principles.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance.
- The court upheld the causation instructions, concluding they correctly stated applicable causation law and did not broaden the charged offense.
- The court rejected claimed Confrontation Clause error regarding the challenged out-of-court statements.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Severance is not required absent a serious risk that a joint trial will compromise a specific trial right or prevent a reliable determination of guilt; antagonistic defenses alone do not compel separate trials.
- In homicide, more than one actor’s conduct may be a proximate cause of death; a defendant may be liable if the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the death and the result was not too remote.
- Jury instructions that explain the causation element of the charged offense, consistent with governing law, do not constitute a constructive amendment of the charging instrument.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires a showing of substantial prejudice, and errors may be deemed harmless given the strength of the evidence.
- Multiple PFDCV convictions may not stand when they are based on an impermissibly duplicative unit of prosecution tied to the same underlying conduct; duplicative counts must be vacated under merger doctrine.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the joint-trial convictions arising from a public shootout that killed a bystander, ruling that severance was not required, the causation instructions properly permitted liability where the defendant’s acts were a substantial factor in the death, alleged Confrontation Clause and evidentiary errors did not warrant reversal, and duplicative PFDCV convictions against Roy had to be vacated under merger principles.


Roy v. United States, 871 A.2d 498 (D.C. 2005)