effects error in District of Columbia

2011In Anthony v. United States, 935 A.2d 275, 284-85 (D.C.2007), we articulated the factors as “the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” (quoting Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 154 , 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (1969)).

2000In deciding whether there was “substantial prejudice,” this court will consider factors such as “the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 154 , 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (1969).

2019Rather, "we must look to the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and any steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error." Id. at 193 .

2007See Clark v. United States, 593 A.2d 186, 192-93 (D.C.1991) (setting forth as factors for determining whether the error was harmless under Kotteakos , “the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and any steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error”).

1999“The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Dyson v. United States, 418 A.2d 127, 132 (D.C.1980) (citations omitted); see also Settles v. United States, 615 A.2d 1105, 1109 (D.C.1992); Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 154 , 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (1969).

1997The critical factors to our determination are “ ‘the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.’ ” Dyson v. United States, 418 A.2d 127, 132 (D.C.1980) (citing Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.

2006In other words, a ease is moot “if ‘there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur [to the complaining party] and ... interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the violation.’ ” Hardesty v. Draper, 687 A.2d 1368, 1371 (D.C.1997) (quoting In re Morris, 482 A.2d 369, 371 (D.C.1984)).

1997A case is considered to be moot if "there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur and ... interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the violation." In re Morris, 482 A.2d 369, 371 (D.C.1984) (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 , 99 S.Ct. 1379, 1383 , 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

1993In deciding whether to reverse the denial of a motion for a mistrial, this court considers "the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the [asserted] error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error." Id. (quoting Bliss v. United States, 445 A.2d 625, 634 (D.C.1982), opinion amended, 452 A.2d 172 (D.C.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 1117 , 103 S.Ct. 756 , 74 L.Ed.2d 972 (1983)) (brackets by the court). .

1993In deciding whether to reverse the denial of a motion for a mistrial, this court considers "the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the [asserted] error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error." Id. (quoting Bliss v. United States, 445 A.2d 625, 634 (D.C.1982), opinion amended, 452 A.2d 172 (D.C. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1117 , 103 S.Ct. 756 , 74 L.Ed.2d 972 (1983)) (brackets by the court). [24] The judge also instructed the jury that "You may consider only the evidence in this case ... you must permit only the evidence in this case to enter in

2008McGrier v. United States, 597 A.2d 36, 41 (D.C.1991) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 , (1946), and Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.

1994McGrier v. United States, 597 A.2d 36, 41 (D.C.1991) (quoting Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 154 , 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (1969) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 7 .

2006See Freeman v. United States, 689 A.2d 575, 584 (D.C.1997) (factors to be considered in determining the existence of substantial prejudice are “the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error”).

2006See Freeman v. United States, 689 A.2d 575, 584 (D.C.1997) (factors to be considered in determining the existence of substantial prejudice are "the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error").

1994The decisive factors for determining whether an error is imper-missibly prejudicial are “the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Outlaw, supra, 604 A.2d at 880 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

1994The decisive factors for determining whether an error is imper-missibly prejudicial are “the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Outlaw, supra, 604 A.2d at 880 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

1983The test to determine whether substantial prejudice occurred as a result of the misconduct is “whether we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 154 , 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (1969) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 123

1980See also Cooper v. United States, supra; Bennett v. United States, D.C.App., 375 A.2d 499, 504 (1977).

2021If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 58 In applying Kotteakos, this court has observed that “the ‘burden’ is not on the appellant to show that he has suffered prejudice; rather, the issue is whether the record eliminates the appellate court’s doubt about whether the error influenced the jury’s decision.” 59 Indeed, “we must find it highly probable that [the] error did not contribute to the verdict.” 60 Finally, we have said, to “assess[] an error’s impact, we typically take three factors into consideration: (1) the centrality of the issue affected by the error

2021If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 58 In applying Kotteakos, this court has observed that “the ‘burden’ is not on the appellant to show that he has suffered prejudice; rather, the issue is whether the record eliminates the appellate court’s doubt about whether the error influenced the jury’s decision.” 59 Indeed, “we must find it highly probable that [the] error did not contribute to the verdict.” 60 Finally, we have said, to “assess[] an error’s impact, we typically take three factors into consideration: (1) the centrality of the issue affected by the error

1983The test to determine whether substantial prejudice occurred as a result of the misconduct is “whether we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 154 , 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (1969) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 123

1982“The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Smith v. United States, supra at 993-94, quoting Smith v. United States, D.C.App., 315 A.2d 163, 166 , cert. denied sub nom.

1985This court has held that “[t]he decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Thomas, supra, 444 A.2d at 954 (quoting Smith v. United States, 392 A.2d 990, 993-94 (D.C.1978)).

1982“The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Id. at 993-94 , quoting Smith v. United States, D.C.App., 315 A.2d 163, 166 , cert. denied sub nom.

2023See Atkins, 290 A.3d at 485 (In a plain error posture, we reserve reversal “to particularly egregious situations,” leaving us to determine if a failure to cure allegedly improper comments “was ‘so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial.’” (quoting Portillo, 62 A.3d at 1257 and Andrade 29 v. United States, 88 A.3d 134, 140 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Ball v. United States, 26 A.3d 764, 772 (D.C. 2011)). 1.

2023See Atkins, 290 A.3d at 485 (In a plain error posture, we reserve reversal “to particularly egregious situations,” leaving us to determine if a failure to cure allegedly improper comments “was ‘so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial.’” (quoting Portillo, 62 A.3d at 1257 and Andrade 29 v. United States, 88 A.3d 134, 140 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Ball v. United States, 26 A.3d 764, 772 (D.C. 2011)). 1.

2023See Atkins, 290 A.3d at 485 (In a plain error posture, we reserve reversal “to particularly egregious situations,” leaving us to determine if a failure to cure allegedly improper comments “was ‘so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial.’” (quoting Portillo, 62 A.3d at 1257 and Andrade 29 v. United States, 88 A.3d 134, 140 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Ball v. United States, 26 A.3d 764, 772 (D.C. 2011)). 1.

2021If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 58 In applying Kotteakos, this court has observed that “the ‘burden’ is not on the appellant to show that he has suffered prejudice; rather, the issue is whether the record eliminates the appellate court’s doubt about whether the error influenced the jury’s decision.” 59 Indeed, “we must find it highly probable that [the] error did not contribute to the verdict.” 60 Finally, we have said, to “assess[] an error’s impact, we typically take three factors into consideration: (1) the centrality of the issue affected by the error

2021If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 58 In applying Kotteakos, this court has observed that “the ‘burden’ is not on the appellant to show that he has suffered prejudice; rather, the issue is whether the record eliminates the appellate court’s doubt about whether the error influenced the jury’s decision.” 59 Indeed, “we must find it highly probable that [the] error did not contribute to the verdict.” 60 Finally, we have said, to “assess[] an error’s impact, we typically take three factors into consideration: (1) the centrality of the issue affected by the error

2021If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 58 In applying Kotteakos, this court has observed that “the ‘burden’ is not on the appellant to show that he has suffered prejudice; rather, the issue is whether the record eliminates the appellate court’s doubt about whether the error influenced the jury’s decision.” 59 Indeed, “we must find it highly probable that [the] error did not contribute to the verdict.” 60 Finally, we have said, to “assess[] an error’s impact, we typically take three factors into consideration: (1) the centrality of the issue affected by the error

2021If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 58 In applying Kotteakos, this court has observed that “the ‘burden’ is not on the appellant to show that he has suffered prejudice; rather, the issue is whether the record eliminates the appellate court’s doubt about whether the error influenced the jury’s decision.” 59 Indeed, “we must find it highly probable that [the] error did not contribute to the verdict.” 60 Finally, we have said, to “assess[] an error’s impact, we typically take three factors into consideration: (1) the centrality of the issue affected by the error

2021If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.” 58 In applying Kotteakos, this court has observed that “the ‘burden’ is not on the appellant to show that he has suffered prejudice; rather, the issue is whether the record eliminates the appellate court’s doubt about whether the error influenced the jury’s decision.” 59 Indeed, “we must find it highly probable that [the] error did not contribute to the verdict.” 60 Finally, we have said, to “assess[] an error’s impact, we typically take three factors into consideration: (1) the centrality of the issue affected by the error

2016See Ebron v. United States, 838 A.2d 1140, 1150 (D.C.2003) (assessing whether admission of irrelevant threats evidence was harmless error by considering “the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2011In Anthony v. United States, 935 A.2d 275, 284-85 (D.C.2007), we articulated the factors as “the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” (quoting Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 154 , 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (1969)).