Background
Marvin W. Lopez was charged with killing Evelyn Yamileth Arrollo Guerra shortly after she ended their turbulent relationship. Evidence showed that Lopez had threatened to kill Arrollo, posted a photograph of ammunition arranged to spell “Te Amo” alongside a threatening message, and sent her additional threats in the days before she was shot outside the restaurant where she worked. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.
At trial, the government presented Dr. Chitra Raghavan as an expert on traumatic bonding and coercive control in domestic-violence relationships. Although the trial court barred her from discussing circumstances that increase the likelihood that an abuser will kill a victim, she briefly referred to a study reporting that most women in the study were murdered within six months after leaving their abusers. The court sustained Lopez’s objection, struck the statement, and instructed the jury to disregard it; Lopez did not request a mistrial.
The court sentenced Lopez to fifty years in prison and credited only the time he had served in the United States, without explaining its refusal to credit more than two years of incarceration in El Salvador while he awaited extradition. Lopez appealed both his convictions and sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. Because Lopez had not requested a mistrial, the court reviewed only for plain error and held that the trial judge did not plainly err by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte. Although the expert’s breakup-related homicide testimony was prejudicial and invited an impermissible propensity inference, the curative instruction was not plainly inadequate, and the prosecution’s evidence against Lopez was exceptionally strong.
The court remanded for the trial court to reconsider or explain its denial of sentencing credit for Lopez’s incarceration in El Salvador. D.C. Code § 24-221.03(a) potentially entitled him to credit if he was held there as a result of the charged offenses, including if he was detained solely while awaiting extradition, but the record contained no findings resolving that issue.
The court rejected Lopez’s separate request for a remand concerning a possible sentencing restriction in the Salvadoran extradition order. Lopez possessed the order but identified no term that the fifty-year sentence violated, leaving no developed claim for appellate relief, although the court did not foreclose a later collateral claim supported by persuasive evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court did not plainly err by declining to declare an unrequested mistrial after striking improper expert testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it.
- Expert testimony suggesting that abusers tend to kill former partners soon after separation improperly invited a propensity inference, but it did not require reversal given the remedy imposed and the strength of the evidence.
- A sentencing court must reconsider or provide a reasoned explanation when denying potentially available credit for foreign detention attributable to the offense of conviction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the difficulty of obtaining reversal for an unrequested mistrial: even highly prejudicial testimony may not establish plain error when the defense sought only a curative instruction and the remaining evidence was strong.
It also confirms that sentencing courts must address fact-dependent claims for credit for time spent in foreign custody rather than rejecting them without explanation. Defendants invoking extradition-based sentencing limits, however, must identify the specific provision allegedly violated.