District of Columbia § 23-115 Limits on defenses that justify, excuse, or mitigate a defendant's conduct on the basis of a victim's gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.

District of Columbia Statutes

§ 23-115 — Limits on defenses that justify, excuse, or mitigate a defendant's conduct on the basis of a victim's gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.

District of Columbia § 23-115

Title 23Criminal Procedure. [Enacted title]

Ch. 1General Provisions.

This text of District of Columbia § 23-115 (Limits on defenses that justify, excuse, or mitigate a defendant's conduct on the basis of a victim's gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D.C. Code § 23-115 (2026).

Text

(a)In any prosecution, criminal proceeding, or criminal trial, when applicable to the offense charged, for the purposes of proving:

(1)Heat of passion caused by adequate provocation, a defendant's provocation was not objectively adequate if it was based on discovery of, knowledge about, or the potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation;

(2)Insanity, the defendant did not lack substantial capacity if the mental disease or defect at issue was based on discovery of, knowledge about, or the potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation; or

(3)Self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property, the defendant was not justified in using for

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(a) In any prosecution, criminal proceeding, or criminal trial, when applicable to the offense charged, for the purposes of proving:

(1) Heat of passion caused by adequate provocation, a defendant's provocation was not objectively adequate if it was based on discovery of, knowledge about, or the potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation;

(2) Insanity, the defendant did not lack substantial capacity if the mental disease or defect at issue was based on discovery of, knowledge about, or the potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation; or

(3) Self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property, the defendant was not justified in using force if the basis for their belief in imminent danger was based on discovery of, knowledge about, or the potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the defense may present evidence of prior trauma to the defendant for the purposes of excusing or justifying the defendant's conduct or mitigating the severity of the offense.