Ben Saidi v. United States
110 A.3d 606
| D.C. | 2015Background
- Saidi was convicted of a single assault upon Wilson after a non-jury trial; Rule 23(c) special findings were timely requested but not provided.
- Wilson, invited by Morris and Samantha to enter the second-floor apartment to assist during an incident, later faced Saidi who was intoxicated and aggressive.
- Wilson briefly left to prepare a room for the women, then re-entered the upstairs unit; Saidi confronted Wilson and punched him in the chest.
- The government dismissed two charges (assaults on Morris and Samantha) and proceeded only on the assault against Wilson.
- Saidi argued a defense-of-property/private-necessity defense, contending Wilson became a trespasser and that force was used to eject him; the trial court did not make the specific Rule 23(c) findings requested.
- Appellate court vacates the conviction and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion, due to lack of required special findings on disputed issues related to the defense-of-property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supported a defense-of-property finding. | Saidi—Wilson was not a trespasser; force used was to eject a trespasser. | Saidi—defense-of-property justified his actions to protect occupants. | Yes; evidence supported defense-of-property beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not making Rule 23(c) special findings. | Defendant timely requested special findings; need for explicit grounds on disputed issues. | Court can render with general verdict if no timely request; no need for detailed findings. | Remanded; trial court must provide special findings on disputed issues. |
| Whether the government disproved the defense-of-property beyond a reasonable doubt. | Gist of defense negated by evidence of primacy of protection of property. | Evidence shows Saidi acted to eject Wilson and to protect property. | Court required to make factual findings to determine if government disproved defense; vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gatlin v. United States, 833 A.2d 995 (D.C. 2003) (trespasser defense; burden on government to prove non-defense beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Shehyn v. United States, 256 A.2d 404 (D.C. 1969) (privilege to eject a trespasser; private necessity limitation)
- Snow v. United States, 484 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (need for specific findings on elements and defenses raised)
- Hussey, United States v., 1 M.J. 804 (A.F.C.M.R. 1976) (special findings typically include elements, defenses, and disputed issues)
- Smith v. United States, 984 A.2d 196 (D.C. 2009) (analysis of when to treat Rule 23(c) findings and related standards)