Source: https://blog.lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/rorie-v-u-s-882-a-2d-763-dc-ct-app-2005/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:20:49+00:00

Document:
CORNELL A. RORIE, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT, MICHAEL L. RANKIN, J.
Andrew G. Ferguson, Public Defender Service, with whom James Klein, Public Defender Service, was on the brief, for appellant.
Patricia A. Heffernan, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Kenneth L. Wainstein, United States Attorney, and John R. Fisher and Terence J. Keeney, Assistant United States Attorney, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before REID, GLICKMAN and WASHINGTON, Associate Judges.
Appellant Cornell A. Rorie was indicted on a charge of second-degree murder while armed (knife), in violation of D.C. Code § 22-2403, -3202 (1996),1 but was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter while armed. He contends primarily that the trial court committed reversible error by giving the jury a “first aggressor” or provocation charge, because “[n]o evidence showed that Mr. Rorie either verbally or physically provoked [the decedent] in the moments before the [fatal] incident.” We hold that in giving the challenged instruction to the jury the trial court committed error, and that error was not harmless. Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for a new trial.
The evidence presented by the government shows that Renee Lewis, leased a one-bedroom apartment in the 700 block of Brandywine Street, in the Southeast quadrant of the District of Columbia, in early August 1994; Rafael Solice,2 her boyfriend, moved into the apartment with her. Sometime around mid-August 1994, Ms. Lewis’ girlfriend, Terry Price and Ms. Price’s boyfriend, Mr. Rorie, rented the living room of Ms. Lewis’ apartment. In addition, Ms. Price and Mr. Rorie used a large walk-in closet for their possessions.
A morning stabbing at the apartment on October 2, 1994, led to the prosecution of Mr. Rorie. At his trial, government witnesses Lewis and Price, and defense witness Rorie recounted the events of that morning. According to Ms. Lewis’ testimony, during the early morning hours of October 2, 1994, just as she and Mr. Solice were preparing to go to sleep around 3 a.m., Ms. Price called Mr. Solice. Ms. Lewis responded to Ms. Price’s call and upon entering the living room observed Ms. Price and Mr. Rorie “arguing.” Ms. Price wanted Mr. Rorie to leave the apartment and Mr. Solice “to take her somewhere.” Mr. Rorie “went into the closet and . . . started taking out some of his clothes and stuff and he . . . told [Ms. Price] that she was going with him also, that if he had to leave she was leaving too.” Ms. Price “said something smart or something to him,” so Mr. Rorie “grabbed her . . . throat” and began to choke her. Ms. Lewis “hollered” at Ms. Price and Mr. Rorie to stop their confrontation. Upon hearing the hollering, Mr. Solice emerged from the bedroom.
Mr. Solice instructed Ms. Lewis “to call the police.” As she turned to leave to call the police, Ms. Lewis “hit [her] head on . . . the door going out.” She “ran . . . to the apartment downstairs” but no one responded to her “banging on the door.” When Ms. Lewis “felt like something was dripping,” she put her hand to her head and discovered blood. At that point, she started back upstairs. Mr. Rorie “was in the hallway” and inquired “what was wrong” when he saw “the blood dripping from [her] head.” The two proceeded back to the apartment, and Mr. Rorie called Mr. Solice “to tell [him] that [Ms. Lewis] was bleeding.” Mr. Solice responded, “man, I told you don’t knock on my door, leave me alone. I ain’t going to tell you no more.” Mr. Rorie tried to explain that Ms. Lewis was bleeding. Eventually both Ms. Price and Mr. Solice went to the bedroom to check on Ms. Lewis. Mr. Solice accused Mr. Rorie of cutting Ms. Lewis. Ms. Lewis pointed out that she hit her head on the door.
Mr. Rorie and Ms. Lewis proceeded back to the apartment. Ms. Lewis and Ms. Price went into the Lewis/Solice bedroom. Mr. Rorie, who was in the living room, “kept telling [Ms. Price] that he wanted to talk with her.” Ms. Lewis informed Mr. Rorie that Mr. Solice did not want him in his bedroom. Mr. Rorie persisted in saying he wanted to talk with Ms. Price. Ms. Price “kept saying she didn’t want to talk to him and [Ms. Lewis] kept saying why don’t you go ahead and talk to him, so we can try . . . [to] . . . get this stuff over with. . . .” Ms. Price finally went to the living room around 6:30 or 7:00 a.m., on October 2, 1994.
After Ms. Price left the Lewis/Solice bedroom, Ms. Lewis “dozed off” but suddenly heard Ms. Price call her. She got up to respond to Ms. Price’s call, and Ms. Price asked her to get Mr. Solice because Mr. Rorie “is trying to kill my baby. . . .” When Ms. Lewis entered the living room, she saw Mr. Rorie “leaning over the top of [Ms. Price] with the knife. She was in the bed” and “on her back.” Ms. Price said, “please go get [Mr. Solice].” Ms. Lewis “went out in the hall and . . . waited.” When she returned to the apartment after “about five minutes,” Mr. Rorie was no longer on the living room bed and was dressed; Ms. Price still was in bed in her night clothes. As Ms. Lewis “was on her way toward [her] bedroom,” Mr. Solice entered the apartment.
Mr. Rorie “asked [Mr. Solice] was he still going to take him home. [Mr. Solice] said I ain’t taking you a damn place, you get there the best way you know how.” In response to Mr. Solice’s instruction to Ms. Lewis, she left the apartment “to go call the police.” Mr. Rorie “was still in the living room and [Mr. Solice] was heading toward the bedroom.” Ms. Lewis finally found a telephone on the street and placed a call to the police. As she was returning to her apartment, she saw “a police car pulling up” and ran toward it. Ms. Price was outside the apartment building. Although she was instructed not to enter the apartment, Ms. Lewis peered in and could see Mr. Solice “not moving or saying anything.” He had been stabbed by Mr. Rorie.
At some point after the collar incident, Mr. Solice “had a bat and he was swinging [it] at [Mr. Rorie] but he broke the glass table in the process. . . .” Mr. Rorie “kept backing up . . . [as] [Mr.] Solice [was] swinging the bat at him.” After the bat swinging incident, Ms. Lewis went out to call the police. She “hit her head” on the door and Mr. Rorie “was trying to tell [Mr. Solice] that Ms. Lewis got hurt” when she bumped her head on the door. Mr. Solice and Ms. Price “put cold water and stuff on [Ms. Lewis’] head” and then Ms. Price went out with Mr. Solice to purchase cocaine.
Some time after sunrise, Mr. Rorie “grabbed [Ms. Price] and pushed [her] down, made [her] lay down. Mr. Rorie was [s]tanding directly in front of Ms. Price. . . . He had a knife in his hand.” Ms. Price called Ms. Lewis. When Ms. Lewis entered the living room, Ms. Price told her “to go get [Mr. Solice].” When Mr. Rorie saw Mr. Solice, he asked, “was he going to help him move his stuff back across town. And [Mr. Solice] said if anything I [will] sit your sh-t in the hallway.” And he said, “you couldn’t be no man because you beat on a woman.” Mr. Rorie continued to remove his things from the walk-in closet.
Ms. Price noticed that Mr. Solice “had eased back into the bedroom and was pushing the door closed.” Ms. Price entered the bedroom and observed that Mr. Solice “had slid down in the corner.” He was “bleeding.” Blood was “on his shirt” and “in the corner.” She ran to call the police and an ambulance.
During his testimony for the defense, Mr. Rorie stated that early on the morning of October 2, 1994, around 3:00 a.m., he had an argument with Ms. Price over “[h]er attempt to purchase drugs.” He tried to physically prevent her from leaving the apartment and a loud argument broke out. Mr. Solice asked both Ms. Price and Mr. Rorie to “lower [their] voices.” Ms. Price did not do so. When Mr. Solice again asked that they lower voices, Mr. Rorie “grabb[ed] [Ms. Price] and [threw] her on the couch.” Mr. Solice then got the baseball bat and “beg[a]n to tackle [Mr. Rorie] . . . [b]y swinging it.” Mr. Rorie “jumped backwards” and Mr. Solice missed him. A second effort by Mr. Solice to hit him with the bat also failed. When Mr. Solice tried a third time by raising the bat over his head in preparation to strike, Mr. Rorie “grabbed the bat” and held it immobile over Mr. Solice’s head. He asked Mr. Solice if he realized what he was doing, and then slowly let go of the bat. As Mr. Rorie began walking away, he “heard a loud smashing sound.” When Mr. Rorie turned to investigate, he “saw [Mr. Solice] standing over the top of the table with the bat in his hand.” Mr. Solice had broken the glass table in the living room. Mr. Rorie got his knife, which he kept on the floor by his nightstand while sleeping, but did not use it. He “backed” away.
Some five minutes later, Mr. Solice and Ms. Price left the apartment to “[p]urchase some drugs.” Mr. Rorie “went into the [walk-in] closet to begin [to] pack his things.” He also had a conversation with Ms. Lewis. After “[r]oughly one hour to 90 minutes, 120 minutes,” Mr. Rorie noticed that Ms. Price and Mr. Solice were returning. He left Ms. Lewis’ bedroom and went to the living room bedroom. Ms. Price and Mr. Solice proceeded to the Lewis/Solice bedroom where they remained for “approximately 35 or 45 minutes.” “[B]etween 5:30 and six o’clock,” Mr. Solice emerged from the bedroom and left the apartment. As he left, Mr. Rorie asked whether he was going to go to work that morning. Mr. Solice was non-committal.
But there’s so much more than that. That’s just one isolated bit. You have to look at the whole context. . . . If you look at this entire case from the time the curtain opens until the curtain closes on the decedent’s life, you have a picture of — a rather chaotic situation and through the night, through the night there were disputes off and on between the defendant and his girlfriend with interventions at the behest of his girlfriend from the decedent.
There is considerable testimony. . . . Testimony from the girlfriend and the defendant and to an extent from the first witness in this case . . . that in the final moments — moments leading up to the final confrontation and then until the confrontation was over, the defendant had the murder weapon in his hand. Reasonable people could conclude that he was behaving in an aggressive manner.
Then you have a moment before the fatal fight. You have testimony undisputed that the decedent uttered words . . . which could only be considered as highly provocative, particularly if the hearer is someone whose senses have already been heightened . . . to something that could probably be described from this evidence as a scathing rage. Someone who is torn between leaving and staying and whose determination is if I leave she goes with me, and who is being told, get out, get out, get the police, get him out. And then the words that we have heard using the curse words, the epithets and then the ultimate challenge to manhood. . . .
Defense counsel responded: “Okay.7 We would ask for 5.14(b) . . . amount of force permissible where appearances are false.” Ultimately the trial court agreed to give criminal jury instruction 5.14(B) [deadly force], 5.17(A)(1) [defendant’s awareness of specific acts of violence by the decedent], and 5.17(C) [threats by the decedent against the defendant].
The trial court decided sua sponte to give instruction 5.16(A) and (B). During the court’s discussion of Instruction 5.16, the government remained silent, but the defense objected. Given this background, the critical issue presented for our consideration in this case is whether, in its instruction regarding the right of self-defense, the trial court appropriately included a charge relating to the defendant as “the aggressor” or the defendant as the person who “provoked the conflict upon himself,” despite the explicit objection of defense counsel and the absence of any request by the government. We begin our discussion by setting forth the general and specific legal principles which guide our analysis.
“In reviewing claims of instructional errors, we consider the instructions as a whole.” Williams v. United States,858 A.2d 984, 995 (D.C. 2004) (citing Hunt v. United States,729 A.2d 322, 325(D.C. 1999)). “`[I]t is axiomatic that a single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.'” Id. (quoting Dickerson v. United States, 620 A.2d 270, 273 (D.C. 1993)). “A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a `theory of the case that negates his guilt of the crime charged’ if the instruction is supported by `any evidence, however weak.'” Graves v. United States, 554 A.2d 1145, 1147 (D.C. 1989) (citations omitted). Furthermore, “an instruction to the jury must `properly inform [it] of the applicable principles involved.'” Hernandez v. United States, 853 A.2d 202, 207 (D.C. 2004) (quotingStewart v. United States, 687 A.2d 576, 579 (D.C. 1996)).
(1) there was an actual or apparent threat [to the defendant]; (2) the threat was unlawful and immediate; (3) the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; and (4) the defendant’s response was necessary to save himself from danger.
The fact that the deceased struck the first blow, fired the first shot or made the first menacing gesture does not legalize the self-defense claim if in fact the claimant was the actual provoker. In sum, one who is the aggressor in a conflict culminating in death cannot invoke the necessities of self-preservation. Only in the event that he communicates to his adversary his intent to withdraw and in good faith attempts to do so is he restored to his right of self-defense.
Peterson, supra, 157 U.S.App. D.C. at 228, 483 F.2d at 1231 (footnotes omitted). Thus, the fact that a defendant may have been an aggressor or a provocateur at an earlier point in time, does not by itself rule out a defense of self-defense. Indeed, “it would . . . be error to deny an otherwise established claim of self-defense solely because [the defendant] had previously taken aggressive action toward [the decedent].” United States v. Grover, 158 U.S.App. D.C. 260, 264,485 F.2d 1039, 1043 (1973). This is so where there is evidence of a “disengagement” due to the passage of time, and “[t]he effect of the disengagement of the parties and the passage of . . . time . . . restore[s] them to the status quo ante.” Id. Thus, “any disability on [the defendant] because of his prior aggression [is] lifted, and he [is] able to defend himself against any subsequent attack.”Id.
The trial court’s view of “the whole context” is inconsistent with fundamental legal principles in the law of self-defense pertaining to “the first aggressor” or provocation. Although criminal jury instruction 5.16(B) specifically states that “[m]ere words without more by the defendant . . . do not constitute aggression or provocation,” the trial court used as a partial justification for giving the instruction words that constituted “epithets” and Mr. Rorie’s “determination . . . [that] if I leave she [Ms. Price] goes with me.” Significantly also, the trial court overlooked the principle that: “[I]t would . . . be error to deny an otherwise established claim of self-defense solely because [the defendant] had previously taken aggressive action toward [the decedent].”Grover, supra, 158 U.S.App.D.C. at 264,485 F.2d at 1043. Hence, even though Mr. Rorie may at times have had a knife in his hands during the early morning of October 2, 1994, that alone does not suggest that the aggressor/provocation jury instruction was appropriate on the facts of this case.8 Where the record contains evidence of disengagement and the passage of time, “[t]he effect of the disengagement of the parties and [the] passage of . . . time . . . restore[s] them to thestatus quo ante.” Grover, supra, 158 U.S.App.D.C. at 264, 485 F.2d at 1043.
The record before us shows that there was disengagement after the first two episodes. The government’s key witnesses, Ms. Lewis and Ms. Price, and the defense’s primary witness, Mr. Rorie, gave similar material testimony showing discrete episodes within three different time frames in the early morning hours of October 2, 1994, and that after each of the first two episodes, Mr. Rorie and Mr. Solice “disengaged” and a block of time passed. The first episode took place around 3:00 a.m. It began with an argument between Ms. Price and Mr. Rorie over her desire to leave the apartment to purchase more drugs despite her pregnancy. When Mr. Rorie sought to restrain Ms. Price physically by grabbing her throat and choking her (Ms. Lewis’ testimony), or grabbing her by the collar (Ms. Price’s account), or throwing her on the couch (Mr. Rorie’s testimony), Mr. Solice confronted Mr. Rorie with a baseball bat and began swinging it at Mr. Rorie. He missed when Mr. Rorie jumped out of the way each time. Mr. Rorie took out his pocket knife when Mr. Solice began to swing the bat the third time, but did not attempt to use it. Mr. Solice ended up smashing the glass table in the living room. There is evidence in the record that disengagement from this episode took place when Mr. Solice and Ms. Price left the apartment to purchase cocaine.
The second episode occurred around 5:30 a.m. According to Ms. Lewis, Mr. Solice and Ms. Price returned from purchasing cocaine about an hour to one and one-half hours after leaving, and smoked it. While Ms. Price was in the living room bedroom with Mr. Rorie, she called Mr. Solice, complaining that Mr. Rorie “was messing with her again.” Mr. Solice and Mr. Rorie exchanged words, went outside, and had more words, during which Mr. Rorie said to Mr. Solice, “come on, man, what you going to do. I’m outside now.” There was no testimony that Mr. Rorie displayed his knife at that time, or took any other provocative action against Mr. Solice. In fact, Mr. Rorie returned to the apartment at Ms. Lewis’ urging to “leave it alone” and to go inside, manifesting disengagement from his verbal exchange with Mr. Solice. Furthermore, Ms. Price, who was not certain of time lines, recalled that after she and Mr. Solice returned to the apartment from purchasing cocaine, Mr. Rorie “was getting loud” and Mr. Solice “went and slept in the van.” Mr. Rorie stated that sometime “between 5:30 and six o’clock” Mr. Solice emerged from his bedroom and went outside. When Mr. Solice was on his way outside, Mr. Rorie asked whether he was going to work that morning and Mr. Solice did not answer the question. There was evidence, then, that further disengagement from the second episode occurred when Mr. Solice left the apartment to sleep in his van. Based upon the legal principle concerning disengagement and the passage of time, then, the relevant context for the trial court’s evaluation of the self-defense evidence with respect to the appropriateness of charging instruction number 5.16(B) was the final episode which occurred sometime between 6:30 and 7:30, or after sunrise. Instead, the court focused its justification for giving instruction 5.16 sua sponte on much earlier events, including the 3 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. episodes.
Ms. Lewis was not in the apartment when the final episode occurred. Prior to the stabbing, Ms. Price heard Mr. Solice’s footsteps as he left his bedroom, and then “bumping” which she interpreted as Mr. Rorie and Mr. Solice “[getting] into it.” She did not immediately investigate. When she finally got up and went to the hallway, she saw “shoving.” As she put it, “They look[ed] like both of them was shoving each other.” That is, “they was pushing back off each other.” Mr. Solice “eased back into [his] bedroom.” When she looked into the bedroom, Ms. Price saw that Mr. Rorie “had slid down in the corner” and that there was blood “on his shirt” and “in the corner.” She called the police.
Instead of focusing on Mr. Rorie’s actions with respect to Mr. Solice, and analyzing whether there was evidence that he was the aggressor toward Mr. Solice, or whether he provoked the final confrontation between the two men, the trial court emphasized his behavior toward Ms. Price. Mr. Rorie’s aggression toward a third party did not turn Mr. Rorie into an aggressor against or provocateur toward Mr. Solice. See People v. Townes,391 Mich. 578, 218 N.W.2d 136 (1974);State v. Wasson, 54 Wash.App. 156,772 P.2d 1039 (1989).9 Furthermore, even if the trial court properly considered the episodes beginning at 3 a.m. on October 2, 1994, the testimony of the witnesses suggested that Mr. Solice was the aggressor toward Mr. Rorie. It was he who swung the bat three times at Mr. Rorie, ending by smashing the glass table in the living room. During that episode the evidence shows that while Mr. Rorie took out a pocket knife, he did not use it. Before the final episode, it was Mr. Solice who hurled provocative words at Mr. Rorie — cursing him, accusing him of not being a man because he beat a woman, and telling him, “I should kill your m-f-ing a —.” In contrast, although Mr. Rorie had his knife the entire time on the early morning of October 2, 1994, he never used it against Mr. Solice. In sum, on this record we conclude that the giving of that instruction constituted error.
While there was evidence supporting an inference that Mr. Rorie provoked some hostility during the interaction of the parties (including Mr. Solice and Ms. Price) that morning, that evidence alone did not justify giving the “first aggressor” or provocation instruction. Rather, instruction no. 5.16(B) is appropriately given when there is both evidence of self-defense and evidence that the defendant provoked the aggression from which he was defending himself. Furthermore, where the giving of the instruction is technically incorrect, the error generally is harmless. However, under the rather unique circumstances of this case, where there are earlier discrete episodes of an aggressive, even violent nature, some of which do not involve both the victim and the defendant, the jury might well be confused by the earlier “provocative” behavior of the defendant that did not operate as a legal trigger of the final fatal confrontation between the victim and the defendant. That potential jury confusion, generated by the technically erroneous “first aggressor” instruction prejudices the defendant. Therefore, it is not harmless.
Mr. Rorie asserts that the proper standard of harmless error analysis in this case is that found in Chapman v. California,386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see also Mabry v. Demery, 707 A.2d 49, 51 (D.C. 1998) (“Under the test in Chapman, constitutional error can be held harmless only if the reviewing court can `declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'”). By citing Brooks v. United States,599 A.2d 1094 (D.C. 1991), the government implicitly argues that the harmless error standard applicable here is not that articulated in Chapman, supra. Rather, it is that set forth in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). That is, “[t]o conclude that the error in this case was harmless . . ., we must be satisfied ` with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.'” Brooks, supra, 599 A.2d at 1102 (quoting Kotteakos, supra, 328 U.S. at 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239) (other citation and footnote omitted).
We conclude that under both of these harmless error standards, the error in giving criminal jury instruction no. 5.16(B) was not harmless because “there was [a] risk that jurors would conclude that they must reject [Mr. Rorie’s] self-defense claim,” Stewart, supra, 687 A.2d at 581, or decide that his fear of imminent harm was unreasonable, because he was the first aggressor, based on (1) his possession of a knife, even though he never used it to threaten Mr. Solice during the episodes leading up to the final one, (2) his confrontations with Ms. Price and his effort to restrain her from going out to purchase more cocaine, and (3) an inference that Mr. Rorie was enraged because, as the trial court implied in deciding to give the aggressor or provocation instruction, and as the government states in its brief: “[J]ust before the fatal conflict [Mr. Solice] made inflammatory remarks attacking [Mr. Rorie’s] manhood.” and his “simmering rage against [Mr. Solice] exploded,” causing him to stab Mr. Solice to death.
As we have indicated, on this record there was no basis on which the trial court reasonably could infer that Mr. Rorie was the aggressor toward or provoked Mr. Solice during the final episode, or that he was the aggressor toward or provoked Mr. Solice because of his behavior toward Ms. Price. Indeed, it was error for the trial court to have given criminal jury instruction No. 5.16(B) because there was no factual predicate for that charge. Even when we “consider the [self-defense] instructions as a whole,” Williams, supra, 858 A.2d at 995, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court erred. By giving the “defendant as aggressor” or the defendant as the person who “provoked the conflict upon himself” instruction and telling the jurors that if they found that “the defendant was the aggressor or if he provoked the conflict upon himself, he cannot rely upon the right of self-defense to justify his use of force,” the trial court not only effectively and improperly took away the government’s burden to disprove self-defense, but also “effectively deprived [Mr. Rorie] of his ability to claim self-defense,” State v. Birnel,89 Wash.App. 459, 949 P.2d 433, 440 (1998) (citation omitted). In short, the trial court also erroneously put forth “concepts that, from the accused’s point of view, . . . [affected the] proper evaluation of the evidence,” Hernandez, supra, 853 A.2d at 207. In sweeping “the whole context” of October 2, 1994, into consideration of the appropriateness of criminal jury instruction 5.16(B), and ignoring the “disengagement” principle, the trial court lost sight of the proper focus on two considerations — one relating to Mr. Rorie’s constitutional right to a defense, that is, a “theory of the case that negates [a defendant’s] guilt of the crime charged”; and the other concerning the government’s burden of proof — its duty “to disprove self-defense, by meeting its burden of proof negating the defendant’s subjective actual belief or objective reasonableness” that “he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.” Swann, supra,648 A.2d at 930 n. 6;Hernandez, supra, 853 A.2d at 205.
We conclude that under either the Chapman or the Kotteakos standard the trial court’s error was not harmless. In short, we cannot say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. 824; Birnel, supra,949 P.2d at 440 (citations omitted). Nor can we declare, “with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not swayed by the error.”Kotteakos, supra,328 U.S. at 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239; Brooks, supra, 599 A.2d at 1102.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for a new trial.10 So ordered.
1. Recodified at D.C. Code § 22-2103, -4502 (2001).
3. Ms. Lewis had purchased crack cocaine on the evening of October 1, 1994.
4. A medical examiner testified that Mr. Solice’s body had four stab wounds. Mr. Rorie could not explain the two additional stab wounds.
If you find that the defendant was the aggressor, or if s/he provoked the conflict upon himself/herself, s/he cannot rely upon the right of self-defense to justify his/her use of force. One who deliberately puts himself/herself in a position where s/he has reason to believe that his/her presence will provoke trouble cannot claim self-defense. Mere words without more by the defendant, however, do not constitute aggression or provocation.
wording of the self-defense jury instruction.
7. On this record we do not interpret defense counsel’s “Okay” to mean that counsel abandoned her objection to Instruction 5.16(B).
9. Although the government in its brief describes both Townes and Wasson as “irrelevant case law from other jurisdictions,” it “agree[s] with the fundamental principle supported by those cases that [Mr. Rorie’s] prior aggression toward [Ms.] Price would not make him the first aggressor here.” Nevertheless, the government argues that “[t]he state of affairs between [Mr. Rorie] and [Ms.] Price (which the instruction did not reference), was highly probative of [Mr. Rorie’s] motive to attack the victim,” and that Mr. Rorie’s “behavior toward [Ms.] Price was powerful circumstantial proof that [Mr. Rorie] was the first aggressor as against the victim.” Drawing such a conclusion of course required a reconstruction of the evidence. But the government used the evidence relating to Ms. Price in its rebuttal argument for different reasons. It attempted to demonstrate that Mr. Solice acted as “a peacemaker” not an aggressor. In addition, the government used the evidence relating to Mr. Rorie’s actions toward Ms. Price to contend that Mr. Solice was not “assaulting” Mr. Rorie during the 3 a.m. baseball bat incident, thus suggesting to the jury that the 3 a.m. episode was relevant to determining who was the first aggressor, despite the “disengagement” principle.
10. In his reply brief, Mr. Rorie raises a sufficiency of the evidence argument, contending that “the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find that the defendant did not act in self-defense or that the defendant exceeded the legal bounds of lawful self-defense.” We are satisfied that had the jury been properly instructed, there was sufficient evidence, including reasonable inferences, on which reasonable jurors could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rorie did not act in self-defense.
Because a new trial is required, we do not address Mr. Rorie’s other claims of trial court error or abuse of discretion. Nor do we consider his ineffective assistance of counsel argument. However, we call the trial court’s attention to the following cases: Ford v. United States, 549 A.2d 1124, 1126 (D.C. 1988) (“[G]iven the highly inflammatory nature of an allegation that a witness is a drug user, drug usage other than at the time of the incident testified about is `generally’ not a proper subject. . . .”); Williams v. United States, 642 A.2d 1317,1320 (D.C. 1994) (“[A] party offering extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness’ denial of being under the influence of drugs at the time of the incident must first establish a sufficient evidentiary foundation that the witness was in fact under the influence of drugs at the relevant time.”);Bushong v. Park,837 A.2d 49, 55 (D.C. 2003) (An “expert witness may respond to hypothetical questions that mirror facts already in evidence.”).

References: V. 
 § 22
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 22
 v. 
 v. 
 v.