## Facts

- Jacqueline Newby physically disciplined her six-year-old daughter during a family outing at a park in Washington, D.C.
- Eyewitnesses reported Newby screamed obscenities while striking the child repeatedly on the head, neck, and shoulders, and kicking the child, including a kick with a shoe to the middle of the child’s back.
- Witnesses stated the blows continued after Newby knocked the child to the ground and that Newby smacked the child’s face with the back of her hand while wearing prominent rings.
- Police were called; Newby was arrested and initially charged with second-degree cruelty to children, but the prosecution later proceeded only on a simple-assault charge.
- At a bench trial, Newby testified she acted to discipline and protect the child, fearing the child might run into danger; she admitted she was angry and lost control but denied intending to hurt the child.
- The trial judge credited the eyewitness testimony and found Newby guilty of simple assault.
- Newby appealed, asserting that parental discipline could not support a simple-assault conviction without proof of malice and that her conduct was protected by the parental-discipline privilege.

## Issues

1. Whether excessive corporal punishment by a parent must be prosecuted, if at all, only under a child-cruelty statute requiring malice, rather than under the simple-assault statute.
2. Whether, in a simple-assault prosecution arising from parental discipline, the government must prove malice to overcome the parental-discipline justification.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show the force exceeded reasonable parental discipline, defeating the parental-discipline justification.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the simple-assault conviction.
- The court held the government may prosecute parent-child assaults under the simple-assault statute when the parental-discipline justification does not apply.
- The court held malice is not an element the government must prove to obtain a simple-assault conviction in the parental-discipline context.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Newby used excessive and unreasonable force beyond the bounds of permissible parental discipline.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a limited justification to use reasonable corporal punishment for discipline.
- The justification does not extend to excessive, cruel, or unreasonable force; such conduct may constitute criminal assault.
- The government may charge parent-child physical abuse as simple assault when the facts support that offense; the charging decision is not limited to a child-cruelty statute.
- In a simple-assault case where parental discipline is raised, the government need not prove malice; it must prove assault and disprove the asserted justification beyond a reasonable doubt by showing the force was unreasonable or excessive.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Newby’s misdemeanor simple-assault conviction, ruling that excessive parental corporal punishment can be prosecuted as simple assault and that the government need not prove malice to defeat the parental-discipline justification when the force used is unreasonable.


Newby v. United States, 797 A.2d 1233 (D.C. 2002)