Graves v. United States, 245 A.3d 963

Background:

On Jan. 9, 2019 an on-duty uniformed MPD officer working store security observed Graves conceal a bottle of wine and followed him into the vestibule, where the officer grabbed Graves near the neck; a struggle followed and Graves bit the officer’s hand.
Graves was charged with second-degree theft and simple assault (biting an officer). The government’s sole witness was the officer; the officer’s body-worn camera was admitted and was unclear on whether the officer choked Graves and did not show the bite.
Defense counsel announced in opening that the defense would contest only the assault charge, arguing the bite was justified by self-defense in response to excessive force visible on the body cam.
After the government rested, the judge ruled (sua sponte) that he would not permit “any self-defense testimony,” concluding as a matter of law that the officer did not use excessive force; Graves did not testify and was convicted on both counts.
On appeal the court held the exclusion of Graves’ testimony violated his constitutional right to testify and to present a complete defense; the court found the issue preserved despite no contemporaneous objection and reversed the assault conviction as not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the theft conviction was affirmed.
The court ordered a new trial on the assault charge and directed that any subsequent bench trial be held before a different judge.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Graves)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Exclusion of defendant’s self-defense testimony (right to testify)	Judge violated Graves’ constitutional right to testify and present a complete defense by barring testimony on excessive force/self-defense	Ruling was proper because the judge concluded as a matter of law the officer did not use excessive force	Court: Exclusion was constitutional error (deprived right to testify); reversal of assault conviction required unless harmless beyond reasonable doubt
Waiver by invited error (opening statement)	N/A (Graves argues error)	Defense invited the ruling by saying the body cam made testimony unnecessary	Court: No waiver — opening remark did not invite prohibition of defendant’s testimony
Forfeiture/plain-error (no contemporaneous objection)	N/A	Claim forfeited because defense failed to object; review should be for plain error	Court: Not forfeited — judge raised the ruling sua sponte and effectively told Graves he could appeal, which fulfilled the purpose of an objection; treating claim as preserved
Harmlessness of constitutional error	Graves: exclusion was prejudicial because his testimony could have shown choking and was the only direct challenge to officer’s account	Government: Error was harmless; officer’s testimony and video made defendant’s testimony cumulative or irrelevant	Court: Error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — defendant’s testimony could have reasonably raised doubt about excessiveness of force; reverse assault conviction and remand for new trial

Key Cases Cited

Arthur v. United States, 986 A.2d 398 (D.C. 2009) (trial court pressured defendant into waiving right to testify; waiver suspect)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (excluding admissible defense evidence because prosecution’s proof appears strong violates right to present a defense)
Speed v. United States, 562 A.2d 124 (D.C. 1989) (limits on self-defense against police: government must prove officer was engaged in official duties and not using excessive force)
Boyd v. United States, 586 A.2d 670 (D.C. 1991) (requirement for on-the-record inquiry when a defendant waives the right to testify)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard: government must prove error did not contribute to verdict beyond a reasonable doubt)
Plummer v. United States, 43 A.3d 260 (D.C. 2012) (judge recusal concerns where a defendant makes incriminating admissions during plea proceedings)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (reasonableness of force depends in part on the severity of the security problem)