Argued April 22, 2015.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (DVM-64-13). (Hon. José M. Lopez, Trial Judge).
Lisa D. Chanel for appellant.
Stephen F. Rickard, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Ronald C. Machen Jr., United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, and Jason Park, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.
Before GLICKMAN and BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judges, and NEWMAN, Senior Judge.
Newman, Senior Judge :
Miller was convicted on three counts of misdemeanor sexual abuse of a child, his now-teenage step-daughter, in violation of
D.C. Code § 22-3010.01 (2001). He appeals, contending that the trial court committed constitutional error in preventing his expert witness from testifying because of a violation of the disclosure requirements of S.Ct. Crim. R. 16(b)(1)(C). He also contends that the evidence against him was insufficient. We affirm.
The case proceeded to a bench trial on July 11, 2013, before the Honorable José M. Lopez. The complainant J.G. testified to the charged incidents. Her mother also testified for the prosecution, corroborating elements of J.G.'s description of dynamics in the home, and also testifying to incriminating statements that Miller made to her after J.G. reported her abuse. On November 18, 2013, Judge Lopez convicted Miller, and sentenced him to 180 days of incarceration on each count, execution suspended, with counts 2-3 to run concurrently with credit for time served, and count 4 to run consecutively, without credit for time served. Miller was also required to register as a sex offender, and to pay $150 to the Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Fund.
I. Exclusion of Expert Testimony
Miller argues that the trial court erred in refusing to let his expert witness testify concerning the likelihood of penetration injuries, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. He also alleges, albeit in passing, that " [t]he government was given sufficient notice . . . that the defense intended to call Dr. Rotolo as an expert witness." He fails to establish that the trial court erred either in its application of S.Ct. Crim. R. 16, ...