Keerikkattil v. United States

313 A.3d 591

Ranjith V. KEERIKKATTIL, Appellant,

v.UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 22-CM-0963

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued February 14, 2024

Decided April 25, 2024

West Codenotes

Limitation Recognized

D.C. Code § 22-3133

Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2015-CMD-017652), (Hon. Robert A. Salerno & James A. Crowell, Trial Judges)

David H. Reiter for appellant.

Anne Y. Park, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Matthew M. Graves, United States Attorney, Chrisellen R. Kolb, Nicholas P. Coleman, and John G. Giovannelli, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Deahl and Shanker, Associate Judges.

Shanker, Associate Judge:

In 2015, appellant Ranjith V. Keerikkattil was terminated from Deloitte Consulting for acting inappropriately toward a junior colleague, S.S. Mr. Keerikkattil then embarked on a months-long campaign of retribution against S.S., in which he, among other things, repeatedly sent S.S. threatening texts and emails; sent letters and communications to Deloitte and government agencies claiming that S.S. had engaged in misconduct; and showed up on the doorstep of S.S.’s parents, who lived across the country. Following a jury trial in the D.C. Superior Court, Mr. Keerikkattil was convicted of criminal stalking under D.C. Code § 23-3133.

Mr. Keerikkattil appeals, arguing that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that it needed to find that his communications fell within one of the narrowly defined categories of unprotected speech as required by our recent decision in Mashaud v. Boone, 295 A.3d 1139 (D.C. 2023) (en banc), violated his First Amendment rights. But Mr. Keerikkattil never asked the trial court for such an instruction, and we hold that any error did not affect his substantial rights and thus does not war- rant reversal. Mr. Keerikkattil also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him, the Superior Court’s jurisdiction, and two aspects of his sentencing. We affirm Mr. Keerikkattil’s conviction but remand for the trial court to reconsider its imposition of probation at sentencing.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The government’s evidence at trial supported the following. During the relevant time period, S.S. lived in the District of Columbia. In early 2015, at the age of twenty-three, she began working as a business technology analyst—an entry-level position—at Deloitte. A month after she started working at Deloitte, S.S. met Mr. Keerikkattil, who worked as a senior consultant within the same information-management group, a position two levels senior to S.S.

After she expressed interest, Mr. Keerikkattil asked S.S. to collaborate on a large proposal he was working on. Proposals are essentially sales pitches to win the federal contracts that make up the "lifeblood" of Deloitte’s federal consulting practice. S.S. understood that working on the proposal would give her exposure, help her develop "an important skill set," and be a "good learning experience." It was her first time working on a proposal.

S.S. and Mr. Keerikkattil worked closely on the proposal, spending the better part of forty hours a week over several months either together in person or communicating with each other. Their collaboration often included working outside the firm’s office, including at a common area in S.S.’s apartment building.

S.S. testified that Mr. Keerikkattil’s questions and conduct veered at times too far into the personal. For example, he once asked her if the reason she was wearing a one-piece swimsuit in a Facebook picture was because she had recently gained weight. S.S. told Mr. Keerikkattil that his comments were "inappropriate" and "rude and hurtful." Mr. Keerikkattil later apologized via text. In his apology, however, Mr. Keerikkattil told S.S. that she was "cute[,] slim[,] and sexy! Big time." Eventually, and repeatedly, S.S. told Mr. Keerikkattil that she wanted to keep their relationship professional and that he should text her only about work-related topics. Nevertheless, Mr. Keerikkattil continued to reach out socially, by, for example, inviting S.S. out to drinks and buying her a bottle of alcohol as a gift.

The day after S.S. rejected Mr. Keerikkattil’s invitation to "grab a drink" socially, Mr. Keerikkattil emailed S.S. a "Cease & Desist Letter." The email apprised S.S. that Mr. Keerikkattil would not be working directly with her anymore and that she should work with others on the team instead. It asked her to "please refrain from contacting [him] except for legitimate business needs of Deloitte LLP." S.S. cried when she received the email, and she did not understand if there were legal ramifications stemming from it. She felt she "was being attacked and punished for not reciprocating [Mr. Keerikkattil’s] advances." Per the request in the email, S.S. ceased contacting Mr. Keerikkattil.

Mr. Keerikkattil, however, continued contacting S.S. He approached her at a work event, and he messaged her privately. S.S. reported the situation to Deloitte. Deloitte terminated Mr. Keerikkattil for lying during its investigation into S.S.’s report. What followed Mr. Keerikkattil’s termination was a campaign of retribution against S.S. over the summer and fall of 2015.

After his termination, Mr. Keerikkattil emailed Vikram Rajan—another Deloitte employee who Mr. Keerikkattil had learned was dating S.S.—requesting that he "preserve" "[a]ny and all communications between [Mr. Rajan] and [S.S.] …, including but not limited to any sexually explicit text messages and [instant messages] exchanged such as ‘I want to eat you [S.S.].’ " The email copied S.S. It explained that Mr. Keerikkattil had "no interest in [S.S.], but [he was] interested in the inappropriate and non-professional relationship between [S.S. and Mr. Rajan] as evidence of [S.S.’s] character and conduct, as well as for violation of Deloitte policies." The email concluded: "So go ahead and continue to bring [S.S.] over to your place, have sex with her or whatever. I’ll make sure that all the shenanigans are captured. The more evidence against [S.S.], the stronger that charges against her become[ ]." Mr. Keerikkattil sent a similar "litigation-hold" email to S.S.

On July 6, 2015, Mr. Keerikkattil emailed S.S. again. The email copied other, more senior, Deloitte employees and alleged that S.S. had violated Deloitte’s "Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct" because of her "inappropriate close relationship" with Mr. Rajan, that she had committed "blatant fraud" with respect to her timekeeping, and that there was "probable cause to believe [she] had violated 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a), a federal felony[,] by not discussing drug related misconduct while applying for federal student aid." Mr. Keerikkattil stated that S.S. could face "up to 5 years in prison and [a] fine up to $20,000." Mr. Keerikkattil closed the email by "assur[ing] [S.S.] that irrespective of how long it takes or whatever it costs we will get to the bottom of [her] lies and misrepresentations."

S.S. denied the allegations in Mr. Keerikkattil’s email. She contested the allegation about an inappropriate relationship with Mr. Rajan. Although they were dating, she testified that the relationship did not violate any Deloitte rules and that they had reported the relationship to human resources. She further denied having "committed blatant fraud," as the email alleged, regarding her timekeeping. As for the drug use, S.S. testified that she had disclosed prior drug use when she applied for a security clearance, and she had not engaged in any drug-related misconduct.

On July 28, Mr. Keerikkattil emailed S.S. to notify her of an impending lawsuit against her. The email explained that if she did not offer a convenient location to be served, he would be forced to have a sheriff serve her at Deloitte, "which might be embarrassing for you." It asked her to "[p]lease take note of the intentional personal injury tort claims against you. You could end up paying damages for the rest of your life …." The email continued, "[i]f you are willing to be truthful and recognize the damages that you’ve caused, I might be able to help you out. After all[,] my intention here is not to ruin your future or ruin you financially." S.S.’s lawyer, who also represented Deloitte, responded and "instructed [Mr. Keerikkattil] to direct any communications intended for [S.S.], regardless of subject matter or context, exclusively to [the lawyer] or [their] designee(s)."

Shortly after the email exchange, S.S. saw Mr. Keerikkattil outside a café they used to work in together near the Deloitte office. The two made eye contact, and S.S. returned to the office and notified security.

In September 2015, Mr. Keerikkattil sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about S.S. regarding her work on a Deloitte project involving the agency. The letter alleged that S.S. had been "fired from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing … allegedly due to illegal drug use history." The letter requested that the agency "launch an inquiry into how [S.S.] was able to obtain a position with [the] IRS despite being fired from [the Bureau of Engraving and Printing] and whether any IRS[ ] policies were violated with regard[ ] to her hiring."

S.S. denied these allegations as well. She had previously completed a security-clearance application for a project involving the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but she withdrew the application after learning that it might be denied due to her prior drug use. She had truthfully answered questions relating to that drug use on the application. She further testified that she had never been denied a clearance or been fired.

On October 1, Mr. Keerikkattil texted S.S. again. Mr. Keerikkattil wrote: "You’d have forgotten me but how can I for what you’ve done to me …." He blamed her for making his "life hell" and not "car[ing] about others." Finally, he told S.S.: "I would have forgiven you if...