English v. United States
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 376, 2011 WL 2714129, 25 A.3d 46 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A passenger cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting a driver's reckless flight from police based solely on their presence in the vehicle during the pursuit and their subsequent flight on foot after the vehicle stops. The prosecution must prove the passenger took some concrete, affirmative action to assist or participate in the driver's flight.
Facts:
- On April 18, 2008, several shots were fired from the passenger side of a passing automobile at Victor and DeAndre Branham, injuring Victor.
- Obbie L. English was driving the vehicle, and Darnell N. Anderson was a passenger.
- Immediately after the shooting, English turned off the car's headlights and fled the scene at a high rate of speed, reaching 95 m.p.h.
- A law enforcement officer promptly activated his emergency equipment and began pursuing the vehicle.
- After the car eventually stopped, English was arrested inside the vehicle.
- Anderson and another passenger fled the stopped car on foot but were apprehended by officers.
- Two pistols and two masks were discovered near the path where the passengers had fled.
Procedural Posture:
- The government prosecuted Obbie L. English and Darnell N. Anderson in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the trial court of general jurisdiction.
- A jury convicted both English and Anderson, inter alia, of fleeing from a law enforcement officer in a motor vehicle.
- Anderson appealed his conviction for fleeing to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him as an aider and abettor.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a passenger's mere presence in a vehicle during a high-speed police chase, coupled with his own flight on foot after the vehicle stops, constitute sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he aided and abetted the driver's offense of fleeing from a law enforcement officer?
Opinions:
Majority - Schwelb, J.
No. A passenger's presence during a police chase and subsequent flight on foot is not, by itself, sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the passenger aided and abetted the driver's crime of fleeing. While a passenger can theoretically be held liable for aiding and abetting this offense, the prosecution must prove the defendant did more than merely remain in the vehicle. To be guilty as an aider and abettor, a defendant must associate himself with the criminal venture, participate in it as something he wishes to bring about, and seek by his action to make it succeed. In this case, the government presented no evidence that Anderson took any 'concrete action' to assist the driver, English, in escaping from the police. Unlike cases from other jurisdictions where passengers gave directions or threw items from the car to impede police, there was no evidence Anderson did anything to encourage or participate in the vehicular flight. Anderson's subsequent flight on foot only proved his own desire not to be apprehended; it did not prove he actively participated in the driver's earlier crime of fleeing in the vehicle.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard required to convict a passenger for aiding and abetting a driver's flight from law enforcement in the District of Columbia. It reinforces the principle that guilt is personal and requires proof of an affirmative act; mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge of its commission and a subsequent attempt to evade capture, is insufficient. The ruling sets a higher bar for prosecutors, requiring them to produce specific evidence of a passenger's active participation—such as encouraging the driver, giving directions, or acting as a lookout—rather than relying on inferences drawn from the passenger's association with the driver and shared interest in escaping.
