Bench trial? Request special findings... or else.

Saidi v. United States, No. 14-CM-0136 (decided February 26, 2015)

Players:  Associate Judges Glickman and Easterly, Superior Court Judge Kravitz, sitting by designation.  Opinion by Judge Kravitz.  Trial judge Ronna L. Beck. 

Facts:     Mr. Saidi was convicted of simple assault for punching his downstairs neighbor, who had come to Mr. Saidi’s apartment in response to sounds of yelling and fighting.  The neighbor had called up the stairs, heard Mr. Saidi’s roommate respond that she was “not okay,” and entered the apartment.  After ascertaining that Mr. Saidi’s roommate was afraid of spending the night in her apartment alone with Mr. Saidi, the neighbor went downstairs to make up a bed in his apartment to enable the roommate to spend the night there.  The neighbor then returned and the woman and her friend went downstairs.  When Mr. Saidi went to follow them, the neighbor stepped in his way and told him to sit down.  Mr. Saidi then punched the wall and told the neighbor to “get out.”  The neighbor said he would do so when Mr. Saidi calmed down.  Mr. Saidi then punched the neighbor once in the chest.  The two men then yelled at each other for a few minutes until the police arrived and arrested Mr. Saidi. 

Issue 1:  Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction given the defense-of-property defense that was raised?

Holding 1:  The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, outlining the contours of a defense-of-property defense before coming to its conclusion.  The Court noted that at common law, a person lawfully in possession of real property may use a reasonable amount of force to eject a trespasser, but is guilty of assault if he uses more force than reasonably necessary.  However, a person may not use force to eject someone who has entered or remained on the property to address a “private necessity” – that is, someone whose presence is or reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent serious harm to a third person, unless the actor knows or has reason to know that the person for whose benefit he enters (or remains) is unwilling that he take such action.  Given the governing law, the government needed to prove not only that Mr. Saidi punched his neighbor, but also one of three possibilities:  (a) the neighbor was not a trespasser at the time of the punch, (b) Mr. Saidi punched the neighbor for a reason other than ejecting him from the apartment, or (c) Mr. Saidi used more force than was reasonably necessary to get the neighbor to leave.  The Court found that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable fact-finder to find (each) of those scenarios beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue 2: Did the trial court make adequate “special findings,” as requested by defense counsel pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 23(c)? 

Holding 2:  No.  The Court reversed and remanded because the trial court did not make specific findings on any of the identified issues, all of which were disputed and raised by the defense-of-property defense.  The Court noted that if special findings had not been requested pursuant to Rule 23(c), the trial court’s verdict would have been affirmed.  But, the Court held, “where a party makes a timely request for special findings and, in the course of the proceedings, identifies with sufficient clarity the matters on which he seeks such findings, the trial judge must articulate findings specific to all issues of fact and law materially in dispute between the parties and fairly raised by the evidence and the party’s request.”  The Court remanded the case to the trial court so that the judge could make the requisite findings.

Of Note:

• Special findings can and should be requested in non-jury criminal cases pursuant to D.C. Super. (Crim.) R. 23(c) and in juvenile delinquency cases pursuant to D.C. Super. (Juv.) R. 31(a).  The criminal rule requires that the request be made before verdict (“on request made before the general finding”).  The juvenile rule does not specify, but the safer route would be to make a pre-verdict request.  
• There is no downside to requesting special findings in bench trials because, as the Saidi Court noted, trial judges are presumed to know the law and their general verdicts come with a presumption of correctness.  Furthermore, on appeal of a general verdict, findings will be implied in support of the judgment if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, warrants them.  Therefore defense counsel can only benefit from requesting special findings from a trial court, because the findings may reveal that the trial court misapprehended the law or made a factual finding unsupported by the record.    
• While the Court makes mention of the need for a party who requests special findings to “identif[y] with sufficient clarity the matters on which he seeks such findings,” the Court does not appear to view that burden as onerous:  in Saidi, it merely pointed to the arguments made by defense counsel in his closing, in which he asserted the defense-of-property defense.  JF.

Read full opinion here.