Brown v. United States
1990 WL 237334, 1990 D.C. App. LEXIS 158, 584 A.2d 537 (1990)
Rule of Law:
The defense of provocation is not limited to fixed common law categories of victim misconduct; rather, it is a flexible standard that asks whether the victim's conduct would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to lose self-control and act without reflection.
Facts:
- Ava Brown's twelve-year-old son ran away from home.
- The boy's grandmother, Joylette Young, found the child but failed to inform Brown, who spent ten days searching for him.
- Brown eventually learned her son was at Young's home and went there to retrieve him.
- Young refused to allow Brown entry or to return the child, alleging Brown was abusive.
- Brown claimed she feared Young would 'institutionalize' the boy as Young had allegedly threatened in the past.
- Denied access to her son, Brown picked up a wrought iron chair from the porch.
- Brown smashed the front windows and door of Young's home in an attempt to force entry and take possession of her son.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Brown with malicious destruction of property.
- During the trial, the judge ruled as a matter of law that the grandmother's refusal to return the child was not adequate provocation.
- The trial judge prevented Brown from testifying about the grandmother's prior threats to institutionalize the boy.
- The jury convicted Brown of malicious destruction of property.
- Brown appealed the conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the legal defense of provocation limited to specific categories of victim misconduct, such that a trial court may rule as a matter of law that a grandmother's refusal to return a runaway child to his mother is insufficient to mitigate the mother's malicious destruction of property?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman
No, the defense of provocation is not limited to rigid categories, and the trial court erred by excluding this defense. The Court reasoned that while the common law originally 'pigeon-holed' provocation into specific categories like adultery or assault, modern jurisprudence has shifted toward a flexible standard based on human nature. The controlling inquiry is whether the provocation was sufficient to cause an ordinary, reasonable person to lose self-control. The Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that a mother, having searched for a lost child for ten days only to find her own mother hiding him and refusing to return him, might be sufficiently impassioned to lose self-control.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the District of Columbia with the modern trend regarding provocation, moving away from formalistic common law categories (such as catching a spouse in adultery) toward a generalized 'reasonable person' standard. By holding that unique family disputes can constitute adequate provocation to negate malice in property crimes, the court expands the fact-finding role of the jury. It emphasizes that 'malice' requires the absence of mitigation, and that whether specific conduct constitutes mitigation is a question of fact dependent on the totality of circumstances rather than a pre-defined list of acceptable excuses.
