Cooper v. United States
512 A.2d 1002, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 378 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person attacked in their own home by a co-occupant does not have an unqualified right to stand their ground under the 'castle doctrine.' Instead, their failure to retreat, if it could have been done safely, is a factor for the jury to consider in evaluating a claim of self-defense.
Facts:
- Leon Cooper and his brother, Robert Parker, lived together in their mother's home.
- After Parker returned from an unexplained 10-day absence, he and Cooper began to quarrel in the living room of their shared home.
- The quarrel escalated, and the two brothers stood in the middle of the room shouting at each other.
- Parker struck Cooper in the head with a small radio.
- In response, Cooper, who was carrying a pistol, shot and killed Parker.
- Cooper later told police he shot his brother because Parker was hitting him with the radio and he 'couldn't take it anymore.'
Procedural Posture:
- Leon Cooper was tried before a jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a trial court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Cooper's counsel requested a 'castle doctrine' jury instruction, arguing Cooper had no duty to retreat because he was in his home.
- The trial judge denied the request, ruling the doctrine does not apply to fights between co-occupants.
- The judge instead gave the standard 'middle ground' self-defense instruction, which permits the jury to consider a failure to retreat.
- The jury convicted Cooper of voluntary manslaughter while armed and carrying a pistol without a license.
- Cooper (appellant) appealed his conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (this court), arguing the trial court's refusal to give the castle doctrine instruction was error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'castle doctrine,' which ordinarily negates any duty to retreat when a person is attacked in their own home, apply when the assailant is a co-occupant of the home?
Opinions:
Majority - Belson, Associate Judge
No, the 'castle doctrine' does not apply when the assailant is a co-occupant of the home. The District of Columbia follows a 'middle ground' approach to self-defense, where a failure to retreat is a circumstance for the jury to consider, but there is no absolute duty to retreat. The court adopts the minority view on the co-occupant exception to the castle doctrine, reasoning that because both parties have an equal right to be in the 'castle,' they have a heightened obligation of tolerance toward one another. Therefore, the standard 'middle ground' jury instruction, which allows the jury to consider whether the defendant could have safely retreated, is appropriate even when the altercation occurs between co-occupants in their shared home.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'castle doctrine' in the District of Columbia by establishing a significant exception for conflicts between co-occupants. It aligns D.C. with a minority of jurisdictions that prioritize the shared nature of the home and the relationship between residents over an absolute right to stand one's ground. The ruling ensures that in domestic disputes that turn violent, a defendant's choice not to de-escalate or retreat when safely possible can be weighed by a jury when assessing the reasonableness of using deadly force. This precedent directly impacts how self-defense claims are litigated in cases of intra-familial or roommate violence.
