The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has upheld the murder conviction of Marvin W. Lopez, who was found guilty of killing his girlfriend, Evelyn Yamileth Arrollo Guerra, on Christmas Eve 2014. The court ruled on July 30, 2026, that Lopez's conviction for first-degree murder and related firearm offenses would stand, but it also remanded the case back to the trial court to reconsider his sentencing, particularly regarding time he spent incarcerated in El Salvador.
This ruling impacts Lopez, who has been sentenced to fifty years in prison, and raises questions about how time served abroad is calculated in sentencing. The case highlights issues surrounding domestic violence, the complexities of extradition, and the legal standards for expert testimony in trials.
Background
Marvin Lopez was charged with the murder of Evelyn Arrollo Guerra after a tumultuous relationship marked by violence and threats. The couple began dating in 2012, but their relationship was fraught with conflict, leading to police involvement on several occasions. Witnesses testified that Lopez had threatened to kill Arrollo if she left him. In December 2014, shortly before the murder, Arrollo ended their relationship and moved in with another man, Juan Campos.
On December 24, 2014, Arrollo was shot outside the restaurant where she worked. Eyewitnesses identified Lopez as the shooter, and he fled to El Salvador after the incident. Lopez was indicted in 2016 but was not arrested until 2023, when he was extradited back to the United States to stand trial. The jury convicted him based on strong evidence, including threatening messages he sent to Arrollo prior to her death.
The Ruling
The court ruled on two main issues raised by Lopez on appeal. First, he challenged the admissibility of expert testimony related to intimate partner violence. The trial court had allowed some testimony from the government's expert but limited it regarding the lethality of relationships following a breakup. Despite these limitations, the expert made comments that the court deemed prejudicial, but the appellate court found that the trial court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial. The ruling stated, "the improper testimony here, while quite prejudicial, was not so prejudicial that a mistrial was plainly the only acceptable remedy, even had the defense requested it."
Second, Lopez raised issues regarding his sentencing. He argued that he should receive credit for the time spent in custody in El Salvador while awaiting extradition. The appellate court agreed that the trial court had not provided a clear explanation for denying this credit and remanded the case for reconsideration. The court noted, "the trial court never explained why it denied Lopez credit for time served while awaiting extradition in El Salvador."
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Lopez, who now has the opportunity for a potential reduction in his sentence based on the time he spent incarcerated abroad. It also raises important questions about how courts handle time served in foreign jurisdictions, particularly in cases involving extradition. The case underscores the need for clarity in sentencing decisions and the importance of providing defendants with appropriate credit for time served.
The court's decision also highlights the challenges of expert testimony in domestic violence cases. The ruling affirms the importance of limiting expert testimony to avoid undue prejudice against defendants while still allowing jurors to understand the dynamics of intimate partner violence.
What's Next
The trial court will need to review Lopez's sentencing and provide a rationale for its decision regarding time served. Lopez may also have the option to appeal further if he believes the outcome of the remanded sentencing does not adequately address his claims. Details about any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.