the crime of malicious disfigurement required that as a result of a permanent injury, a person must be appreciably less attractive or that a part of the body must be to some appreciable degree less useful
How later courts described this case
- the crime of malicious disfigurement required that as a result of a permanent injury, a person must be appreciably less attractive or that a part of the body must be to some appreciable degree less useful
- “Since the episode occurred over a long period [one and one-half hours] and numerous weapons were used before and after the demand for money, it cannot be said that the events were so unitary as to present a situation where merger is arguable”
- permanent disfigurement, for purposes of malicious disfigurement, means that the person was “appreciably less attractive or that part of his [or her] body is to some appreciable degree less useful or functional than it was before the injury”
- defining “disfigure” as “to make less complete, perfect, or beautiful in appearance or character”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot agree that the malicious disfigurement proscription of D.C.Code 1973, § 22-506 is simply a “sentencing statute” that preserves the requirements of specific intent and malice. The malicious disfigurement proscription differs from the Coventry Act and the Maryland Act (Md.Ann. Code art. 27, § 385 (1976 Supp.)) by deleting the specific intent element and substituting the element of malice which is a less arduous element than specific intent or malice aforethought. Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524 (1906); Hamilton v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 382 (1905). In my view that dispels any notion that specific intent need be proved. See W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law § 83 at 616 (1972); see, e.g., Wis.Stat.Ann. § 940.21 (West); see also Charles v. United States, D.C.App., 371 A.2d 404, 411 (1977) (malicious destruction of stolen property); Nichols v. United States, D.C.App., 343 A.2d 336, 341 (1975) (malicious destruction of property); Curry v. United States, D.C.App., 322 A.2d 268 (1974) (malice for second-degree murder); United States v. Hinkle, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 334 , 487 F.2d 1205 (1973) (malice in homicide instruction). The words of the statute, being a substantive change or repeal of the earlier proscription, should be construed in their ordinary sense and with the legal meaning commonly attributed to them. United States v. Young, D.C.App., 376 A.2d 809, 813 (1977); United States v. Thompson, D.C.App., 347 A.2d 581, 583 (1975). The only explanation for this holding lies in a penchant to make criminal law enforcement more complex and difficult without achieving any good end.