Mack v. United States
2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 612
| D.C. | 2010Background
- Mack stabbed Price with an ice pick on November 30, 2006; Price died several months later from his injuries.
- Mack was acquitted of several charges (second-degree murder while armed, manslaughter while armed, PPW (b)); he was convicted of carrying a dangerous weapon (CDW).
- Mack sought a jury instruction adding an anticipatory self-defense exclusion for carrying a weapon; the court declined.
- Trial court instructed CDW under standard DC jury instructions, explaining the need to prove an intent to use the object as a dangerous weapon; self-defense was addressed separately.
- Appellate court concluded the CDW statute applies to ordinary objects with dangerous potential, rejected Mack’s self-defense exemption, and upheld the conviction; it also rejected a Second Amendment challenge as plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC CDW prohibits carrying a dangerous weapon for self-defense | Mack argues an anticipatory self-defense exemption should apply | The statute bans carrying any deadly or dangerous weapon and does not carve out anticipatory self-defense | No; statute does not permit the exemption, and carrying is prohibited |
| Whether Wilson-Dandridge-Cooke-Hurt line applies to anticipatory self-defense | Mack relies on these cases to justify carrying for self-defense | Line of cases allows self-defense-only exceptions, not anticipatory public-carry | No; limited self-defense doctrine does not justify anticipatory carrying |
| Whether good-faith carrying for self-defense negates CDW guilt | Carrying inherently lawful objects for self-defense should be exempt | General-intent CDW offense covers such carrying | Carrying a dangerous weapon is a general-intent offense; anticipatory self-defense does not absolve guilt |
| Whether the Second Amendment prevents the CDW conviction | Conviction violates the right to keep and bear arms outside the home | Heller/McDonald do not clearly extend to this setting; ice pick not a protected bearable arm outside home | No plain error; Second Amendment does not clearly apply to carrying an ice pick outside the home in this context |
| Whether the rule of lenity or constitutional avoidance applies | Ambiguity should favor the defendant | Statute text is clear; avoidance/lenity inapplicable | Not applicable; statute and precedents are clear; no constitutional conflict |
Key Cases Cited
- Dandridge v. United States, 265 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (limits on self-defense carry not applicable to anticipatory carry)
- Wilson v. United States, 198 F.2d 299 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (restricts self-defense carry doctrine to timing and necessity)
- Cooke v. United States, 275 F.2d 887 (U.S.App. D.C. 1960) (limits self-defense carry doctrine outside imminent danger)
- Dandridge v. United States, 265 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (anticipant theory rejected for anticipatory carry)
- Shannon v. United States, 144 A.2d 267 (D.C.1958) (intent element in PPW; distinction from general CDW offense)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (Supreme Court 2008) ( Second Amendment not unlimited; concealed carry restrictions upheld)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (extends applicability of Heller to states; limits undefined outside home)
- Wooden v. United States, 6 A.3d 833 (D.C. 2010) (plain-error review of CDW conviction outside home)
- Monroe v. United States, 598 A.2d 439 (D.C. 1991) (dissent on possession of lawful object with future intent)
- Brown v. United States, 619 A.2d 1180 (D.C. 1992) (self-defense requires necessity at the time; leaving safe haven undermines claim)