Picking up a knife to defend yourself from a person hurling household objects at you is not “excessive force.”

Shirley Williams v. United States, No. 12-CM-474 (decided May 15, 2014)

The Players: Judges Beckwith, Easterly, and Belson.  Opinion by Judge Belson.  Raymond J. Rigat for appellant.  Trial Judge: Brian Holeman.

The Facts: When Ms. Williams came to pick up her children from their paternal grandparents, a fight broke out between her and the children’s grandmother, Jennifer Bragg, in an upstairs bedroom.  Ms. Williams testified that she retreated downstairs, where the front door was locked and she could not get out.  The government did not call the alleged victim, but her husband and Ms. Williams both testified that once the women were downstairs, objects were flying around and breaking.  Ms. Williams testified that the complainant was hurling the objects at her, while the husband testified that he did not know who threw them.  Ms. Williams testified that she ran to the kitchen and picked up a knife to defend herself.  The Braggs’ son testified that at this point he came up from the basement and took the knife from Ms. Williams without a struggle. 

The trial judge acquitted Ms. Williams of assault because the government failed to establish that Bragg was not the first aggressor in the bedroom.  As for the events downstairs, the trial judge did not resolve the question of who was hurling the objects but nonetheless convicted Ms. Williams of attempted possession of a prohibited weapon (knife), D.C. Code § 22-4514(b) (“PPW(b)”), on the ground that even if Ms. Williams was the victim downstairs – with the complaining witness throwing objects at her – it was excessive under the circumstances to pick up and brandish a knife rather than try to find a way to escape.   

Issue:  Did the government adduce evidence sufficient to establish that the defendant’s brandishing of a knife under the circumstances was not in self-defense? 

Holding:  No.  If indeed Ms. Williams was the one under attack (objects thrown at her downstairs), then the brandishing of a knife was not excessive force as a matter of law.  Ms. Williams was acting in “the heat of conflict” and her reactions must be accorded leeway and not be judged by the standards of “a calm mind”; and merely brandishing a knife should not be confused with the actual use of deadly force.  While the Court would normally remand on the question the judge did not address – who was the aggressor with respect to hurling objects – it was unnecessary to do so here because the government failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Ms. Williams was the one hurling the objects where her testimony on the point was uncontroverted.  SF.

Read the full opinion here.