Watson v. United States
19-CF-1015
D.C.Jan 27, 2022Background
- On July 10, 2017, a shoot‑out occurred in the Wylie Court condominium courtyard after a verbal dispute; Derrick Watson left, went to his car, returned, gestured/produced a gun, lunged, and gunfire ensued. A toddler, Jeremiah White, suffered serious gunshot injuries.
- Video and eyewitnesses showed multiple participants firing; ballistics indicated three guns were used and .40 caliber casings largely tied to Watson. Watson did not testify; co‑defendants Salu and Williams pleaded guilty to related counts.
- A jury acquitted Watson of AWIKWA but convicted him of ADW (against Williams and Salu), multiple ADW (intent‑to‑frighten) against bystanders (some later conceded to merge), ASBIWA (Jeremiah), related PFCV counts, and felon‑in‑possession (FIP).
- On appeal Watson challenged several jury instructions (provocation/forfeiture of self‑defense; urban‑gun‑battle (UGB) causation; concurrent‑intent), argued insufficiency of evidence for several convictions, and sought merger of counts.
- The court affirmed the provocation instruction, found the UGB instruction erroneous (per Fleming) and prejudicial as to ASBIWA (reversed ASBIWA and related PFCV), vacated several intent‑to‑frighten ADW convictions (and associated PFCV) against three bystanders, and affirmed the remaining ADW convictions (Williams and Salu), two related PFCV convictions, and the FIP conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Watson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provocation / forfeiture of self‑defense instruction | No evidence Watson intended to provoke or knew others were armed; instruction unsupported | Evidence supported inference Watson knew Salu carried weapons, went to car to arm himself, gestured/displayed gun, and stepped toward Williams—so he provoked | Instruction was properly given; evidence supported forfeiture of self‑defense |
| Urban Gun Battle (UGB) causation instruction (but‑for vs substantial‑factor) | UGB instruction used substantial‑factor causation, not but‑for; not appropriate here and prejudiced ASBIWA conviction | UGB harmless for ADW convictions; may be applied beyond homicide in some circumstances | UGB instruction erroneous per Fleming; harmless for ADW against Salu/Williams but prejudicial as to ASBIWA (ASBIWA and related PFCV reversed) |
| Concurrent‑intent instruction | Improper for general‑intent crimes like attempted battery ADW | Even if erroneous, harmless because Watson directly fired at Williams (video) | Any error harmless; attempted‑battery ADW against Williams upheld |
| Sufficiency and merger of ADW / PFCV convictions | Several ADW convictions unsupported; multiple counts should merge | Evidence supports separate assaults on Salu and Williams; where distinct targets existed convictions and associated PFCV need not merge | Vacated intent‑to‑frighten ADW convictions as to Quigley and the two children (merged); affirmed ADW convictions as to Salu and Williams and their PFCV convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (U.S. 1895) (discusses provocation and when self‑defense may be forfeited)
- Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1894) (consideration of necessity of route and arming in assessing intent to provoke)
- Wallace v. United States, 18 App. D.C. 152 (D.C. Cir. 1901) (provocation instruction proper where words/conduct imply intent to provoke quarrel)
- Fleming v. United States, 224 A.3d 213 (D.C. 2020) (en banc) (requires but‑for causation language; criticized UGB substantial‑factor instruction)
- Parker v. United States, 254 A.3d 1138 (D.C. 2021) (explaining Fleming’s but‑for causation requirement)
- Andrews v. United States, 125 A.3d 316 (D.C. 2015) (endorsing forfeiture‑by‑provocation doctrine without requiring intent to provoke)
- Roy v. United States, 871 A.2d 498 (D.C. 2005) (prior approval of UGB instruction criticized in Fleming)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless‑error standard applied to instructional error)