Wooden v. United States
2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 601
| D.C. | 2010Background
- Appellant Stacia Wooden was convicted of carrying a dangerous weapon (CDW), a knife, under a DC CDW statute with a jury instruction permitting conviction if she intended to use the knife as a dangerous weapon, including self-defense.
- Wooden challenged the instruction on Second Amendment grounds; the trial proceeded before Heller was decided, but post-trial appeal uses plain-error review under Johnson.
- The altercation involved Wooden, Victoria Thomas, and Emma Cunningham’s care; the dispute arose from Thomas’s involvement with Cunningham and grandmother Emma Cunningham.
- During the May 28, 2005 incident, a fight escalated from indoors to a porch, with a neighbor observing Wooden holding a knife and Thomas bleeding.
- The knife’s exact type and whether it was carried openly or concealed were disputed; it was taken from Wooden by a bystander and the jury had no definitive determination on concealment.
- The court affirmed the conviction, applying plain-error review and distinguishing the knife issue from the handgun-centered analysis in Heller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Heller render the CDW instruction plainly erroneous for a knife outside the home? | Wooden argues Heller extends Second Amendment protection to knives carried for self-defense outside the home. | Wooden's position rests on extending firearm-era protections to knives; the court should not read Heller as applying plainly here. | No plain error; Heller does not obviously extend protection to knives carried outside the home. |
| Is there plain error in the concealment and self-defense aspects of the knife under Heller? | Wooden contends jury should have been instructed on concealment and self-defense protections. | Record does not clearly prove concealment or self-defense applicability; Heller analysis is uncertain for knives. | Not plain error; concealment/self-defense nuances do not mandate reversal. |
| Should this court exercise its discretion under Thomas to address Second Amendment error despite lack of clear guidance on knives? | Wooden urges court to assess potential Second Amendment error under Thomas. | Thomas requires clear, obvious error; the record lacks a definitive path to apply Heller to knives outside the home. | Declined to exercise discretion; no adequate grounds to resolve knife-specific Second Amendment error here. |
| Does Heller's focus on firearms foreclose any protection for knives carried for self-defense outside the home? | Wooden suggests knives may be protected like firearms under Heller if used solely for self-defense. | Heller centers on firearms; no conclusive historical analysis supports extending protection to knives in this context. | Heller does not clearly extend protection to knives outside the home; no plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual right to possess and carry weapons for confrontation and self-defense, limits on certain weapons)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1939) (weapons protected are those in common use for militia purposes)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain-error standard for appellate review of preserved errors)
- Sims v. United States, 963 A.2d 147 (D.C. 2008) (plain-error approach to weapons charges outside the home; Home/self-defense distinctions)
- Thomas v. United States, 914 A.2d 8 (D.C. 2006) (discretion to address non-Crawford/Confrontation errors under Ola-no factors; not controlling here)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (extends Heller to limits on firearm restrictions; not definitive on knives outside home)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error framework for reversal in federal courts)