## Facts

- Leon D. Cooper lived with his brother, Robert Parker, and their mother in a small house in the District of Columbia.
- After Parker returned home following an unexplained absence, Cooper and Parker argued in the living room.
- The confrontation escalated and Parker struck Cooper on the head with a small radio.
- The mother went upstairs to call for help; while upstairs she heard a gunshot and returned to find Parker on the floor.
- Cooper stated that he had shot his brother and later told police he shot because he “couldn’t take it anymore” after being hit.
- Parker died from the gunshot wound.
- Cooper was charged with voluntary manslaughter while armed and carrying a pistol without a license.
- At trial Cooper asserted self-defense and requested a “castle doctrine” instruction stating he had an unqualified right to stand his ground in his home and no duty to retreat.
- The trial court instead gave the standard self-defense instruction (Instruction 5.16B), which permits the jury to consider a failure to retreat as one circumstance when assessing the reasonableness of deadly force.
- The jury convicted Cooper of voluntary manslaughter while armed and carrying a pistol without a license.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a homicide arising inside the defendant’s home, the trial court erred by refusing a requested “unqualified” no-duty-to-retreat instruction and by giving the standard self-defense instruction that allows consideration of failure to retreat as a circumstance bearing on reasonableness.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the trial judge did not err by refusing the requested “unqualified right to stand his ground at home” instruction.
- The court held Instruction 5.16B, read as a whole, correctly stated District of Columbia self-defense law and did not impose a legal duty to retreat.

## Legal Principles

- Jury instructions are evaluated as a whole; isolated phrases are not read to create error when the full charge correctly states the law.
- Under District of Columbia self-defense doctrine, a defendant who reasonably believes he faces imminent death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force is necessary is not required to retreat and may stand his ground.
- Even where retreat is not legally required, the jury may consider a defendant’s failure to retreat (if safe retreat was available) as one circumstance in deciding whether the defendant’s use of deadly force was reasonable.
- District of Columbia law does not require a separate, categorical “castle doctrine” instruction that bars any consideration of retreat merely because the confrontation occurred in the home.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed because the standard self-defense instruction adequately conveyed that no legal duty to retreat applies when deadly force is reasonably believed necessary, while permissibly allowing jurors to weigh non-retreat as part of the overall reasonableness assessment, even when the incident occurs inside the defendant’s residence.


Cooper v. United States, 512 A.2d 1002 (D.C. 1986)