Defendant Is Entitled To Show That He Is Afraid Of His Big Sister

David Travers v. United States (Decided October 8, 2015).

Players: Judges Glickman, Beckwith, and Senior Judge King. Opinion by Judge King. Dissent by Judge Glickman. PDS for Mr. Travers. Trial Judge: Stuart Nash

Facts: Mr. Travers lived with the complaining witness, who happened to be his older (elderly) sister. One October day in 2012, Mr. Travers and his sister got into an argument over a female companion Mr. Travers had in his room. That night, Mr. Travers’ sister called the police complaining that Mr. Travers hit her during the course of the argument. Mr. Travers voluntarily left the apartment. Mr. Travers returned home early the next morning and went to his sister’s room to check on her. She was in bed with her boyfriend. Mr. Travers’ sister started fussing again about his female friend, and so Mr. Travers attempted to exit the room, telling his sister to go back to sleep, they would talk about it later. As he was leaving the room, Mr. Travers heard his sister yell, “Get him,” and her boyfriend got up from the bed and started at him. Mr. Travers grabbed a nearby golf club and started swinging. The room was dark. He hit his sister.

At trial, Mr. Travers testified that he and his sister had a good relationship (except when she was drinking). Mr. Travers also testified about the hostile relationship he had with his sister’s boyfriend (who had previously threatened him). The defense sought to question Mr. Travers and his sister about prior occasions in which the sister had “assertively induced” friends to attack family members under the theory that it was reasonable for Mr. Travers to believe he was in danger when his sister told her boyfriend to “get him.” The court precluded the line of questioning, holding it amounted to impermissible propensity evidence.

Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding this line of inquiry?

Holding: Yes. The Court held that a “defendant’s knowledge of a victim’s prior bad acts or reputation for violence is relevant to the reasonableness of the appellant’s state of mind when assessing a claim of self-defense.” Here, knowledge that Mr. Travers’ sister had previously induced friends to attack family members would have been relevant to Mr. Travers’ “perception that he was in danger.” Thus, the Court reversed, holding there was a “real possibility” that the jury “could have rendered a different verdict” if this line of questioning had been admitted.

Notes: The dissent did not really quarrel with the notion that had Mr. Travers’ sister previously instructed friends to attack family members, such evidence would be relevant to a self-defense claim. Instead, the dissent took issue with the “skimpiness” of the defense’s proffer, arguing that the trial court conducted a thorough inquiry and that it was within its discretion to find that the proffer lacked legitimate probative value.  DH

Read full opinion here.