Key Takeaways
- Chris Brown is asking a California court to throw out the $12.9 million dog-attack verdict in favor of ex-housekeeper Maria Avila and grant a new trial with a different jury.
- His lawyers argue the jury was unfairly swayed when Avila's attorney asked if he was a convicted felon, forcing him to reference his 2009 Rihanna assault case, which they call an "inherently inflammatory" and irrelevant prior crime.
- Avila's attorney Nancy Doumanian says the evidence of Brown's liability for the 2020 mauling by his 200-pound dog Hades was "overwhelming," defends the $12.9 million award, and insists the verdict will stand.
Chris Brown's legal team is pushing to undo his $12.9 million dog-attack jury verdict, arguing that a single cross-examination question about his 2009 assault conviction against Rihanna tainted the entire trial.
The singer's attorneys filed a motion on Monday (August 10) seeking to wipe out the verdict won by his former housekeeper, Maria Avila, and secure a new trial before a different jury, according to documents seen by Complex.
A California judge had ordered Brown to pay Avila $12.9 million in damages on June 30, part of a broader judgment that also included $885,000 to her sister and $50,000 to her husband.
The motion centers on a question Avila's attorney posed during cross-examination: whether Brown is a convicted felon. He answered, "Yes, ma'am," a reference to his 2009 guilty plea to felony assault after assaulting then-girlfriend Rihanna. Brown's lawyers contend that question was "inherently inflammatory" and that the trial court failed to properly weigh its prejudicial impact against any legitimate evidentiary value.
The filing states: "Mr. Brown's conduct in an unrelated domestic-violence matter 17 years prior had no bearing on Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, causation or damages. The jury was affirmatively told that the conviction could be used to determine whether Mr. Brown was believable. Thus, ... it was expressly authorized to discount Mr. Brown's testimony based upon a 17-year-old crime of violence having no direct relationship to honesty or veracity."
Brown's team had sought to exclude all mention of the 2009 conviction before the June trial. California evidence rules allow felony convictions to be used for impeachment but require the court to balance probative value against unfair prejudice, and that balancing decision is precisely what the motion attacks.
The underlying lawsuit stems from a December 2020 attack at Brown's Tarzana home, where his 200-pound Caucasian Shepherd named Hades mauled Avila as she took out the trash. The dog is claimed to have tore flesh and exposed bone in her face and arm, leaving her with permanent disfigurement, nerve damage, and vision impairment. Brown admitted some liability at trial but argued Avila shared fault, testifying he had specifically warned her not to go outside unaccompanied because the dog was unfriendly.
Brown's lawyers are also arguing that the $12.9 million award cannot reasonably be reconciled with the injuries and damages actually established at trial.
Avila's attorney Nancy Doumanian pushed back on Wednesday (August 13) in an interview with Billboard.
"You can't hit the reset button every time a jury holds you accountable," she said. "The evidence was overwhelming, the jury got it right, and we're confident this motion will meet the same fate as the defense did at trial."
