Darius Winston v. United States
106 A.3d 1087
D.C.2015Background
- Darius Winston was issued a one-year DCHA barring notice on August 15, 2013, by Officer Chasten after being found sitting on a stoop in the Kelly‑Miller LeDroit housing complex. Winston refused to sign or accept a copy and left.
- Officer Chasten did not verify whether Winston was a resident’s guest when issuing the barring notice; DCHA database showed Winston formerly lived at Kelly‑Miller but no longer resided there.
- Winston was later arrested for unlawful entry after being found on DCHA property on August 19 and September 11, 2013; the prosecutions were premised on violation of the August 15 barring notice.
- At trial Chasten was the government’s sole witness; Winston’s mother testified she lived at Kelly‑Miller, that Winston visited her frequently, and the court found her testimony credible.
- The trial court found the barring lawful under 14 D.C.M.R. § 9600.5(b)(2) (guest restrictions) and convicted Winston of two counts of unlawful entry; Winston appealed, arguing the barring lacked sufficient factual support.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the government proved the barring was authorized by DCHA regulations and whether the issuing official had an objectively reasonable basis for so believing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government must prove validity of DCHA barring order to sustain unlawful entry conviction | Winston: government failed to prove barring authorized; officer did not verify guest status, so barring lacked evidentiary basis | Government: validity of barring not an element; alleged invalidity is no defense to unlawful entry | The court held government must prove barring was authorized by regulation and that issuing official had an objectively reasonable basis for believing regulatory criteria were met |
| Whether evidence showed Winston was not a resident’s guest on Aug 15 | Winston: credible testimony showed he regularly visited his mother who lived in the complex, so no proof he was not a guest | Government: officer’s observation that Winston was not with a resident justified barring | Court: record did not support finding Winston was not a guest; government failed to disprove guest status |
| Whether § 9600.5(b)(2) (being at location not on guest pass) justified barring | Government: officer’s observation (stoop, not on direct route, not accompanied) supported barring under § 9600.5(b)(2) | Winston: no evidence about guest pass or that provisos (direct route/accompanied) applied | Court: although stoop location suggested not on direct route, there was no proof Winston lacked a guest pass or that the provisos applied; insufficient basis under § 9600.5(b)(2) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict for Aug 19 and Sept 11 entries | Winston: absent lawful barring, entries were authorized; evidence insufficient | Government: barring was effective and required obedience unless invalidated | Court: because government failed to prove valid barring, evidence insufficient and convictions reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cartledge v. United States, 100 A.3d 147 (D.C. 2014) (discussed standards for barring notices and possible defenses)
- Russell v. United States, 65 A.3d 1172 (D.C. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency claims)
- Duffee v. District of Columbia, 93 A.3d 1273 (D.C. 2014) (reviewing elements of crime de novo)
- In re D.F., 70 A.3d 240 (D.C. 2013) (de novo review of regulatory interpretation)
- In re Richardson, 759 A.2d 649 (D.C. 2000) (ordinary rule declining novel constitutional claims raised first on appeal)