The Court of Appeals in Travers v. U.S., issued on October 8, 2015, revered multiple felony assaultive convictions because the defendant was restricted at trial to fully either testify or to elicit testimony to bolster his self-defense theory.
Travers was convicted of assaulting his sister Bethel during a domestic dispute where the complaining witness, his sister had directed her boyfriend/Scott to “get him”, Travers that is.
Travers alleged that in self-defense he had used a golf club to swing at the boyfriend and had accidentally hit his sister, the complaining witness.
Travers argued that the court erred by precluding him from presenting the evidence of Bethel’s prior acts instigating violence or directing violence at family members through other individuals. That these prior acts had contributed to his objective belief that self-defense was necessary or that he was in peril.
He was also not allowed to testify as to his knowledge and circumstances surrounding these prior acts of violence through third party.
The Court highlighted that “[a] person’s right of self-defense, and especially the degree of force the victim is permitted to use to prevent bodily harm, is premised substantially on the victim’s own reasonable perceptions of what is happening.”
That if the Travers had reasonably and objectively believed he was in imminent peril of serious bodily harm – his claim of self defense would be that much more credible and all relevant evidence contributing to his state of mind – was admissible and probative.
Specifically “defendant’s knowledge of a victim’s prior bad acts or reputation for violence is relevant to proving the reasonableness of appellant’s state of mind when asserting a claim of self-defense.”
The Court essentially held that the jury needed to hear the evidence of prior acts of violence by the complaining witness in order to assess the objectivity and reasonableness of the defendant’s response.
That “if the evidence offered conduces in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in controversy, it should go to the jury.”
The trial court had limited the defense counsel to explore these lines of questioning either through the complaining witness or the defendant and in effect had preventing the introduction of compelling evidence supporting the defense theory.
Self-defense when fully explored and developed at trial, can shift the burden of proof yet again to the government making it even harder to obtain a conviction.
Not only that the assault was committed beyond a reasonable doubt, but also self defense was also not a viable defense – again beyond a reasonable doubt.
Refer to our DC Assault Lawyer/DC Criminal Lawyer page for more information on this subject.