Millhausen v. United States

253 A.3d 565

Dylan C. MILLHAUSEN, Appellant,

v.UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 19-CF-47

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued November 17, 2020

Decided July 8, 2021

Matthew B. Kaplan, Arlington, VA, for appellant.

Matthew Covert, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Jessie K. Liu, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, Ethan Carroll, and Puja Bhatia, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Easterly and McLeese, Associate Judges.

McLeese, Associate Judge:

Appellant Dylan C. Millhausen was convicted of assault with significant bodily injury, and his sentence was enhanced on the ground that he had committed a bias-related crime. Mr. Millhausen argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to disprove his claim of self-defense and (2) the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence statements elicited from Mr. Millhausen in violation of the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to disprove self-defense, but we agree with Mr. Millhausen's Miranda claim.

I.

In sum, the following evidence was presented at trial. One evening in August 2016, Nicole Vives, Michael Vives, and Mehtab Bakhshi went to a bar. An argument eventually broke out between Mr. Bakhshi and Mr. Vives. The group left the bar, and the argument continued outside.

While Mr. Bakhshi and Mr. Vives were arguing, Mr. Millhausen approached Ms. Vives. After a brief conversation, Mr. Millhausen invited Ms. Vives to get pizza. Mr. Millhausen seemed drunk. Ms. Vives told Mr. Millhausen that she was with Mr. Vives and Mr. Bakhshi, whom she identified as her husband and friend, respectively. Mr. Millhausen asked if Mr. Bakhshi had been bothering her.

Mr. Millhausen thereafter approached Mr. Bakhshi from behind, removed Mr. Bakhshi's turban, and dropped the turban on the ground. Mr. Bakhshi is a Sikh, and he wore the turban for religious reasons, to keep his head covered in public. Mr. Bakhshi turned and threw a punch at Mr. Millhausen, but the punch did not connect. Mr. Millhausen responded by punching Mr. Bakhshi in the face multiple times. Mr. Bakhshi fell to the ground, and Mr. Millhausen continued to punch Mr. Bakhshi in the face. Mr. Bakhshi lost consciousness, and he was unresponsive to police officers who responded to the scene. Mr. Bakhshi was taken to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a head injury, a bruise, and contusions. Mr. Millhausen was not heard to make any racial or ethnic remarks during the altercation.

Police officers detained and handcuffed Mr. Millhausen. Several clips from an officer's body-worn-camera footage showed Mr. Millhausen making various statements. Specifically, Mr. Millhausen expressed the view that a lot of people had been hurt in Germany, France, Italy, and other countries, but "this is the United States" and that "you bring that shit here, it ain't gonna end well." In the presence of the jury, the trial court took judicial notice of the fact that in 2016 there had been "significant publicity regarding attacks or plots in France, Italy, and Germany that some attributed to Islamic extremists."

II.

Mr. Millhausen argues that the evidence was insufficient to disprove his claim of self-defense. We disagree.

"When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving full play to the right of the fact-finder to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact." Miller v. United States , 209 A.3d 75, 77 (D.C. 2019) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). "[W]e will overturn a conviction on insufficient proof grounds only if there was no evidence adduced at trial upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Augustin v. United States , 240 A.3d 816, 823 (D.C. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where evidence of self-defense is present, the government bears the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rorie v. United States , 882 A.2d 763, 776 (D.C. 2005).

The United States argues that Mr. Millhausen had no right of self-defense because Mr. Millhausen initiated the altercation by removing Mr. Bakhshi's turban. We need not decide that issue. Even if Mr. Millhausen had a right of self-defense after Mr. Bakhshi attempted to punch Mr. Millhausen, there is "no right to use excessive force in self-defense." Hart v. United States , 863 A.2d 866, 874 (D.C. 2004). In this case, a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Millhausen used excessive force in responding to a single missed punch by (1) punching Mr. Bakhshi multiple times in the face, causing Mr. Bakhshi to fall to the ground; (2) continuing to punch Mr. Bakhshi in the face even after Mr. Bakhshi fell to the ground; and (3) causing Mr. Bakhshi to lose consciousness. Cf., e.g. , id. ("[T]he evidence of the injuries suffered by the complainant—coupled with the fact that appellant suffered none of consequence—permitted the jury to find that appellant forfeited [the] right of self-defense by using excessive force.").

III.

Mr. Millhausen also argues that his statements in the clips from the body-worn-camera footage were erroneously admitted in violation of the requirements of Miranda . We agree.

A.

Before interrogating a suspect in custody, the police generally must warn the suspect that "he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." J.D.B. v. North Carolina , 564 U.S. 261, 269, 131 S.Ct. 2394, 180 L.Ed.2d 310 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Statements obtained in violation of Miranda ’s requirements are generally inadmissible. In re I.J. , 906 A.2d 249, 255 (D.C. 2006). "In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress on Miranda grounds, we defer to [the trial court's] factual findings. ... However, we review the ultimate question of law de novo, and whether, on the established facts, appellant was under custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings is a question of law." Johnson v. United States , 207 A.3d 606, 611 (D.C. 2019) ; see also Gilmore v. United States , 742 A.2d 862, 868 (D.C. 1999) (whether defendant's statement was product of custodial interrogation "involves questions of both fact and law").

B.

Mr. Millhausen filed a pretrial motion arguing that the statements on the body-worn-camera footage should be suppressed under Miranda . The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, and the only evidence admitted at the hearing was approximately thirty minutes of body-worn-camera footage. That footage reflects the following.

At the beginning of the video, Mr. Millhausen was in handcuffs, standing in the street with two police officers. Mr. Millhausen told the police that he was scared. The officers had Mr. Millhausen sit down on the sidewalk, and they asked him for identification. Mr. Millhausen said that he was active-duty military and reiterated that he was scared. An officer asked Mr. Millhausen what happened, and Mr. Millhausen responded that he had been attacked. After some further discussion of Mr. Millhausen's ID, which was eventually located, the officer again asked "what happened?" and Mr. Millhausen again said he was attacked by a "guy." The officer asked, "[w]hat happened with him here? That's what I need to know, what happened." Mr. Millhausen responded by indicating that he had been talking with someone's girlfriend, that one person had been grabbing at another person's "head thing," and that Mr. Millhausen "ended up grabbing his head thing."

The officer then said "[a]lright, go back. So, he attacked you?" Mr. Millhausen asked about the status of the other participants and was told that one person was unconscious. Mr. Millhausen then explained that there was a fight, that he was trying to separate the parties, that "the dude attacked me," and that "[w]hen he tried to attack me, I showed no mercy and I beat the fuck out of him."

The officers and Mr. Millhausen then briefly discussed Mr. Millhausen's physical condition. During that discussion, Mr. Millhausen said "they try to do that shit around me, it's not going to happen." An officer asked whether the other person assaulted Mr. Millhausen first, and Mr. Millhausen said yes. The officer asked what happened after that, and Mr. Millhausen said that he saw a fight, that he did not know the people involved, that he had tried to intervene to help, and that "when they came at me, I did my thing." The officer asked what happened after that, how the other person ended up on the ground, and how Mr. Millhausen hit the other person. Mr. Millhausen said that he was not sure where he hit the other person, but that he was not going to let the other person attack him.

After some further discussion, the officer asked if Mr. Millhausen was by himself when "all this happened," and Mr. Millhausen said yes. The officer told Mr. Millhausen to "hold on one second while we finish our investigation," and then asked if Mr. Millhausen needed medical attention. After declining medical attention, Mr. Millhausen said "[l]ook, this is the United States, that's all I'm saying look. ... [Y]ou can try that shit in France, know what I mean, you can try that shit in Italy, look, you bring that shit here, it ain't gonna end well, you know what I mean?" The officer responded, "Ok, I understand, hold on one second."

Mr. Millhausen and the officer continued their discussion of the incident, and Mr. Millhausen made a series of comments about other countries and the news: "[G]o ahead and try that shit, this ain't Spain motherfucker. This ain't motherfucking France, motherfucker, go ahead."; "[L]ook when you hear about some bad shit on the news this one dude did that shit, ... there's about a...