US v Dominique Stephens

On June 17, 2009, at 10:32 p.m., a call was received at the 911 dispatch center of the

Metropolitan Police Department in New Columbia. The female caller said, "I just shot my husband," and gave the address as 1799 Lamont Street, N.W. Detective Dana Hughes responded to the call and reached the house at 10:38 p.m.

Detective Hughes met Dominique Stephens at the door. Mrs. Stephens led the Detective to a bedroom upstairs. When Detective Hughes entered the bedroom, he saw a fully clothed man, later identified as Donovan Stephens, Dominique Stephens' husband, lying face down on the bed covered with a light blanket. The blanket had three bullet holes in it, and several blood stains.

Detective Hughes ascertained that the man on the bed was dead, and asked Mrs. Stephens who he was and what had happened. She responded "I shot my husband," and pointed to a pistol which lay on the dresser near the bed. Detective Hughes read Mrs. Stephens her Miranda rights, and placed her under arrest.

Later, at the station, Mrs. Stephens waived her right to counsel and to remain silent.

Detective Hughes questioned her, after which Detective Hughes wrote up a statement. Mrs. Stephens signed it. The prosecution charges Mrs. Stephens with the First Degree Murder of her husband, Donovan Stephens.

Dominique Stephens admits that she shot her husband, but now, through her attorney, asserts that the she acted in self defense. Mrs. Stephens now claims that for the entire time of her marriage to Donovan Stephens she has been the victim of severe and continual physical and emotional abuse from him; she says the last time he beat her, he almost killed her. She claims that because of this continued abuse, she is suffering from battered woman syndrome, and that she shot her husband because she had a reasonable belief that even though her husband was asleep, her life was in imminent danger. She claims she had no choice but to kill him.

Prosecution

Affidavit of Dana Hughes, Detective, Metropolitan Police Department:

Detective with the Metropolitan Police Department in
New Columbia. Police officer for 17 years and a detective for the past six years.

Affidavit of Jordan Bright, Dominique Stephens's sibling:

Waiver of Rights

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT

Recovered Weapon

Defense

Sloppy Police Work:

Did not clear the house upon entering

Examined body and "determined" that the victim was dead. No call for medical help. Not a medical professional so how did she determine for sure the man, who had just recently been shot, was past the point of no return?

States the pistol found on the nightstand had recently been fired. How was this determined without testing? Was a GSW test performed on the defendant?

Did not have medical professionals look at the obvious trauma to the victim's face or take pictures.

"Confession" was written by the detective and shows signs of bias based on the affidavit of the detective investigating this case. The confession should have been written by the defendant - not by the detective.

Reports of prior abuse phoned in by the neighbors seems to play no part in this investigation as no attempt was made by the detective to question the neighbors.

Statement made by one of the members of the crowd on the night of the incident was not investigated by the detective.

Opinions offered in the affidavit of the detective are reflected in the "confession," and these opinions do not count as the detective expert.

Subtopic

Affidavit of Tony Williams, former Director, Washington Women's Shelter:

Affidavit of Dominique Stephens, Defendant:topic

Affidavit of Sidney Miller, M.D.,
Director, Emergency Medical Services, New Columbia Hospital Center

Affidavit of Dr. Bobby Phoenix, expert on battered woman syndrome:

New Columbia Hospital Patient Record

Prosecution

13-201. Requirements for criminal liability

The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a duty imposed by law which the person is physically capable of performing.

13-1101. Definitions

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Premeditation" means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of time to permit reflection. Proof of actual reflection is not required, but an act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

2. "Homicide" means first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.

3. "Person" means a human being.

4. "Adequate provocation" means conduct or circumstances sufficient to deprive a reasonable person of self-control.

13-1105. First degree murder; classification

A. A person commits first degree murder if:

1. Intending or knowing that the person's conduct will cause death, the person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child, with premeditation or, as a result of causing the death of another person with premeditation, causes the death of an unborn child.

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. topic

Defense

Subt 13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person. opic

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.