Chris Brown is fighting to reopen a multimillion dollar civil case after a Los Angeles jury sided with his former housekeeper over a brutal 2020 dog attack. The latest turn in the case centers on his attorneys’ argument that jurors were improperly exposed to his 2009 felony assault conviction involving Rihanna while deciding how much Brown and his company should pay Maria Avila.
Brown’s legal team filed a motion on August 10 seeking to throw out Avila’s $12.9 million verdict and have the dispute heard again by a different jury. His lawyers argue that several issues during the trial prevented Brown from receiving a fair proceeding, but one moment during cross-examination has become a central part of their push for another trial.
During questioning, Avila’s attorney asked Brown whether he was a convicted felon. Brown responded, “Yes, ma’am,” without describing the underlying criminal case to jurors. The answer referred to Brown’s 2009 guilty plea to felony assault involving his then-girlfriend Rihanna, according to Billboard. His attorneys now argue that even the limited reference to his felony record was “inherently inflammatory” and had nothing to do with the claims jurors were being asked to decide in Avila’s lawsuit.
The filing makes the defense’s position clear: “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.”
That distinction matters because Brown’s team had been trying to keep the Rihanna case away from the dog attack proceedings before testimony even began. Brown successfully sought to prevent the underlying Rihanna assault case from being presented during the civil trial. His latest motion argues that asking about his felony status still gave jurors information capable of influencing how they viewed his credibility, even without additional details about the conviction being discussed.
California law also gives trial judges discretion when potentially prejudicial evidence enters a case. Under California Evidence Code Section 352, a court may exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion, or misleading jurors. Brown’s attorneys are essentially arguing that the balance in the Chris Brown case went the wrong way once his criminal history became part of the credibility discussion.
The lawsuit itself dates back to a December 2020 incident at Brown’s home in Tarzana, California. Avila was working at the property when a roughly 200-pound Caucasian shepherd named Hades attacked her as she was taking out the trash. She testified that the attack left her with serious injuries to her face and arm, permanent disfigurement, and continuing mobility problems.
Brown acknowledged negligence during the eventual trial but disputed how responsibility should be divided and challenged aspects of Avila’s damages claims. According to People, Brown testified that he had warned Avila and her sister Patricia not to approach the dogs without assistance because the animals were not friendly. The sisters disputed that account and pointed to a language barrier as one reason they said the alleged warning did not happen.
The jury ultimately awarded Maria Avila $12.9 million. People reported that Patricia Avila received another $885,000 for emotional distress, while Maria’s husband, Oscar Olivo, was awarded $50,000. Those separate awards push the combined amount awarded to the family to roughly $13.8 million. The Chris Brown case therefore involves more money than the $12.9 million figure attached specifically to Maria Avila’s judgment.
Brown’s attorneys are also challenging the size of Maria’s award. According to Billboard, the defense contends that the damages cannot be squared with the evidence presented concerning Avila’s injuries and losses. The motion additionally challenges the exclusion of evidence involving money that Brown’s head of security allegedly provided to Avila’s family following the attack, another issue his attorneys believe could have affected the jury’s assessment of damages.
There is another unusual layer to the Chris Brown case. The June proceedings had already been disrupted once before the final verdict. Judge Huey P. Cotton declared an earlier mistrial after a juror conducted independent internet research and shared information with other jurors despite instructions not to do so. A new jury was then selected, and that replacement panel ultimately returned the June 30 verdict now being challenged by Brown.
Avila’s attorney, Nancy Doumanian, is pushing back against the attempt to restart the litigation. In comments to Billboard, she defended the jury’s decision and expressed confidence that Brown’s motion will fail.
“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.”
The fight is now about more than whether Avila was injured in the 2020 attack. Brown’s new trial request asks the court to decide whether the way his criminal record entered the proceeding was unfairly prejudicial, whether other evidentiary decisions affected the outcome, and whether the $12.9 million award was supported by what jurors heard at trial. Avila’s side, meanwhile, maintains that the verdict reflected the evidence and should remain intact. The next major decision in the Chris Brown case will determine whether the multimillion-dollar judgment survives or whether the parties will have to present the dispute to yet another jury.
