Cunningham v. District of Columbia ( 2020 )

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the
Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound
volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 16-CT-442
JAMES CUNNINGHAM, APPELLANT,
V.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLEE.
Appeal from the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia
(CDC-12189-14)
(Hon. Elizabeth C. Wingo, Trial Judge)
(Hon. Harold L. Cushenberry, Jr., Reviewing Judge)
(Submitted October 31, 2017 Decided August 20, 2020)
Christopher A. Zampogna was on the brief for appellant.
Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Todd S. Kim,
Solicitor General at the time the brief was filed, Rosalyn Calbert Groce, Deputy
Solicitor General, and John D. Martorana, Assistant Attorney General, were on the
brief for appellee.
Before GLICKMAN, FISHER, and EASTERLY, Associate Judges.
FISHER, Associate Judge: Appellant James Cunningham asserts that the
Superior Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this prosecution for
making a false report to the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) because he
2
made the report while located in Maryland. Appellant also argues that the
evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Appellant Cunningham was employed by the District of Columbia
Department of Youth and Rehabilitative Services (“DYRS”) and worked as a
youth development specialist at the New Beginnings detention facility. Although
located in Laurel, Maryland, New Beginnings houses juveniles from the District of
Columbia who have been committed to a secure facility.
While working at New Beginnings on June 8, 2014, appellant was left alone
with several youths after his partner went to use the bathroom. He noticed two
youths engaged in “horseplay” in a room that was off-limits. Appellant claims that
when he ordered them to leave the room, one of the youths became angry and
threatened to “glass [him] up,” or assault him. As appellant walked away and
radioed for help, the youth allegedly struck appellant from behind, with a closed
fist, on the right side of his head. Appellant claims the blow caused him to fall to
the floor and lose consciousness.
3
Once other New Beginnings employees arrived, appellant told them what
had happened and asked for someone to call the police. A coworker then called
the MPD. Appellant was initially taken to Patient First and then later to Laurel
Regional Hospital where he sought treatment for a head injury.
Two MPD employees, Officer Bryant Tran and Detective Jeremy Bank,
traveled from the District of Columbia to Laurel, Maryland, in response to the call
from New Beginnings. Officer Tran spoke with appellant after he was taken to
Patient First. Appellant told Officer Tran he was struck by the youth in the face
and then fell to the floor unconscious.
Detective Bank interviewed appellant after appellant spoke with Officer
Tran. Appellant told Detective Bank that the youth had threatened to “glass [him]
up” and when appellant turned his back, the youth punched him in the head. 1 At
trial, both Officer Tran and Detective Bank testified that they stood close to
appellant while he made his report. However, neither of them saw any visible
injury or other indication that the youth had hit appellant in the head.
1
After talking with the officers, appellant prepared a DYRS Incident
Notification Form in which he recounted the version of events summarized above
for a third time. This form was admitted into evidence at trial.
4
While at New Beginnings, Officer Tran and Detective Bank viewed
surveillance video of the area in which appellant claimed he was assaulted. The
video depicted events that were contrary to what appellant told the police. At trial,
the court viewed the video and noted that it showed one of the youths touch
appellant on the shoulder. Officer Tran and Detective Bank testified that appellant
then “threw” himself to the floor and lay there as if unconscious. The video never
showed the youth strike appellant on the head. Officer Tran and Detective Bank
returned to the District of Columbia after interviewing appellant, taking notes, and
viewing the surveillance video. The next day, Detective Bank interviewed the
youth who allegedly struck appellant.
The government later filed a criminal information charging appellant with
making a false or fictitious report to the MPD in violation of D.C. Code § 5-
117.05.2 Before trial began, appellant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Because the allegedly false report and the assault itself both
2
The Information alleged that appellant “did willfully or knowingly make
or caused to be made, communicate or cause to be communicated, to the
Metropolitan Police force, or to an officer or member thereof, a false or fictitious
report of the commission of a criminal offense within the District of Columbia, or
of any other matter or occurrence of which the Metropolitan Police force is
required to receive reports, or in connection with which the Metropolitan Police
force is required to conduct an investigation, in violation of D.C. Code § 5-117.05
(2001).”
5
occurred in Maryland, appellant argued that the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his prosecution.
On the first day of trial, September 2, 2015, the trial court denied appellant’s
motion to dismiss. It determined that, regardless of where the facility was located,
the alleged assault by the youth would be a matter reported to, or investigated by,
the MPD. Magistrate Judge Wingo also noted that this case involved District of
Columbia employees as well as a District facility that houses District youth. The
effects of appellant’s actions were felt in the District of Columbia and the only
logical place to vindicate the District’s interests was in the District’s courts. Judge
Wingo determined that appellant’s case was analogous to Ford v. United States,
616 A.2d 1245 (D.C. 1992), a decision we will discuss later.
After the parties presented their evidence, which included testimony from
Officer Tran, Detective Bank, and appellant, the trial court found there was no
dispute that appellant made a report of assault to the MPD. The only questions
were whether the report was false and whether appellant made the report knowing
it was false. The trial court determined that an assault was not committed when the
youth touched appellant’s shoulder and, even if the touch was an assault, it was not
the same conduct appellant reported to the MPD. After “scour[ing] that video over
6
and over,” the court found that there was “simply nothing in the video to suggest”
appellant was ever punched in the head by the youth. 3 The court found appellant
guilty of making a false police report and sentenced him to pay a three-hundred-
dollar fine.
On October 15, 2015, appellant filed a motion for review of the judgment,
arguing for a second time that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and
that the evidence was insufficient. Judge Cushenberry found that the Superior
Court had jurisdiction because appellant’s act of reporting the incident to the MPD
“demonstrate[d] that he knew at the time that MPD was clothed with the power to
investigate the incident.” Appellant’s false report also wasted District resources
and, “had the juvenile been charged with any crime resulting from this incident, he
would have been prosecuted in the District of Columbia, not Maryland.”
Judge Cushenberry also found that the evidence at trial was sufficient to
support appellant’s conviction “and the credibility judgments made by the trial
3
The trial court also noted that, while the video shows appellant holding the
left side of his face, he would not be holding the left side of his face had he been
hit on the right side as he reported. The medical records introduced by appellant
did not “provide any additional support for his claim” because they were “just
discharge instructions” and did not contain a “specific analysis by any medical
officer.”
7
court must remain undisturbed because they are not clearly erroneous.” On April
18, 2016, he denied appellant’s motion for review. Appellant filed a timely appeal.
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
“Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the court’s authority to adjudicate the
type of controversy presented by the case under consideration.” In re J.W., 837
A.2d 40, 44 (D.C. 2003) (quoting In re R.L., 590 A.2d 123, 128 (D.C. 1991)).
“Like all questions of law, [this court] review[s] questions concerning the trial
court’s jurisdiction de novo.” Id.
Appellant’s jurisdictional attack rests on two arguments. First, he cites D.C.
Code § 11-923(b)(1) (2012 Repl.), which states that “the Superior Court has
jurisdiction of any criminal case under any law applicable exclusively to the
District of Columbia.” Appellant claims that this court has interpreted D.C. Code
§ 11-923(b)(1) to “limit [the Superior Court’s] jurisdiction to criminal violations
taking place within the boundaries of the District.”
Second, appellant claims that the Superior Court’s adjudication of his case
violated his constitutional rights. Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United
8
States Constitution provides that “[t]he Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be held in the
State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.” The Sixth Amendment
to the Constitution states that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a . . . trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed.” Appellant contends that these provisions of
the Constitution were violated because he made the report to the MPD while in
Maryland but was tried in the District of Columbia.
As interpreted by this court, D.C. Code § 11-923(b)(1) is “consistent with
the requirements of [A]rticle III, [S]ection 2, [C]lause 3, and the [S]ixth
[A]mendment to the United States Constitution that criminal offenses be
prosecuted in the state or district in which they were committed.” United States v.
Baish, 460 A.2d 38, 40 (D.C. 1983). This court has determined that a crime is
committed and may be tried where any “integral component[]” of the offense
occurs. Id. at 40, 43. “The criminal act, the [motive] of the perpetrator, the cause,
and the effect, are but parts of the complete transaction. Wherever any part is
done, that becomes the locality of the crime as much as where it may have
9
culminated.” 4 Adair v. United States, 391 A.2d 288, 290 (D.C. 1978) (quoting
State v. Ashe, 48 P.2d 213, 215 (Wash. 1935)). 5
We reject appellant’s arguments asserting a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. In United States v. Baish, the government could not prove that the
defendant was located within the District when she placed threatening telephone
calls. 460 A.2d at 42–43. However, “both the utterance and the communication of
the threatening language [were] integral components of the offense of making
threats to do bodily harm.” Id. at 43. “Proof that either component occurred
within the District establishe[d] a basis for prosecution in the Superior Court.” Id.
This court determined that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because the threat
4
The actual quote from Adair, 391 A.2d at 290, contains the word “notice”
in place of the word “motive.” However, Adair is quoting Ashe, 48 P.2d at 215,
which uses the word “motive.” Ashe in turn quotes Commonwealth v. Jones, 82
S.W. 643, 645 (Ky. 1904), which also uses the word “motive.” Thus, it seems that
Adair misquoted Ashe and the correct word to be used in the sentence is “motive”
instead of “notice.”
5
The Supreme Court has applied the relevant constitutional provisions in
the same way, although they generally govern venue, not jurisdiction, in federal
prosecutions. See United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1, 6 (1998) (explaining that
“[t]he Constitution twice safeguards the defendant’s venue right”). In United
States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, the Supreme Court confirmed that, under these
constitutional provisions, an offense is “committed in all of the places that any part
of it took place, and venue for [the offense] [is] appropriate in any of them.” 526
U.S. 275, 282 (1999). A court must “initially identify the conduct constituting the
offense (the nature of the crime) and then discern the location of the commission of
the criminal acts.” Id. at 279.
10
was communicated by telephone to someone located within the District of
Columbia. Id.
We further explored when a crime has been committed “within the District
of Columbia” in Ford v. United States. 616 A.2d at 1251. In Ford, the appellant
claimed that there was no jurisdiction to prosecute him for obstruction of justice
because his acts in bribing a witness, despite being carried out in order to influence
his pending trial in this jurisdiction, had occurred entirely in Maryland. Id. at
1251–52. We explained that the Superior Court nonetheless had jurisdiction over
the prosecution because “the ‘gravamen’ of the offense of obstruction of justice” is
the attempt to influence a particular investigation or proceeding, and “Ford’s
conduct was intended to interfere with the integrity of the judicial process in the
District of Columbia.” 616 A.2d at 1252–53. The crime was thus committed
within the District of Columbia under the meaning of D.C. Code § 11-923(b).
Ford also “agree[d] entirely with the opinion in” a “mirror image” case decided in
Maryland: Pennington v. State, 521 A.2d 1216 (Md. 1987). 6 Pennington reasoned
that “where causing a particular result constitutes an element of the offense” and
6
Pennington involved the same jurisdictional issue, but the jurisdictions
were reversed; it addressed an obstruction of justice charge that arose from a
stabbing that occurred within the District of Columbia, but was carried out “in
order to dissuade [the stabbing victim] from testifying in an assault case then
pending in Baltimore, Maryland.” Ford, 616 A.2d at 1252.
11
when “the offense is against the State itself,” the court “view[s] the gravamen of
those crimes as being the injury to the State and . . . conclude[s] that jurisdiction
exists where the offended agency of the State is located.” 521 A.2d at 1219–22.
The logic of Ford and Pennington applies equally to this situation. To
violate D.C. Code § 5-117.05, the defendant must knowingly “make or cause to be
made . . . a false or fictitious report” to the MPD. As in those cases, “causing a
particular result constitutes an element of the offense.” Pennington, 521 A.2d at
1219. Appellant’s communication of the false report to the MPD was thus
committed in the District of Columbia because an integral component of the crime
— causing the false report “to be made to” MPD — took place in this jurisdiction.
See also Baish, 460 A.2d at 42–43 (because “communication of the threatening
language” is an “integral component[] of the offense of making threats to do bodily
harm,” “if a threat is heard by someone within the District of Columbia, the
speaker threatens with[in] the proscriptive ambit of § 22–507 — regardless of
where [the defendant] utter[ed] the threatening words”). Consistent with both D.C.
Code § 11-923(b)(1) and the United States Constitution, the Superior Court
properly exercised jurisdiction over appellant’s case. 7
7
We further note that, had an assault actually occurred, it could have been
prosecuted within the District of Columbia. See In re E.D.P., 573 A.2d 1307,
(continued…)
12
Appellant relies on Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (1911), an extradition
case, to argue that the District of Columbia did not have jurisdiction because he did
not “intend” to produce “detrimental effects” here. Strassheim states that “[a]cts
done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental
effects within it, justify a state in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been
present at the effect.” 221 U.S. at 285. While appellant uses this language to press
the idea that “intend[ing] to produce . . . detrimental effects” is a separate,
independent requirement for a court to assert subject matter jurisdiction, we think
that this argument assigns an unwarranted restrictive gloss to Strassheim’s words.
The quoted sentence in Strassheim is descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and
simply explains that the facts in that case were sufficient to convey jurisdiction.
We see no support for the proposition that our court, as well as the Supreme Court,
has failed to understand, for more than a century, that some form of
(…continued)
1308–09 (D.C. 1990) (juvenile prosecuted in Superior Court for assaulting security
officer at juvenile detention facility run by the District of Columbia but located in
Maryland; holding that District of Columbia “trial judge properly denied
appellant’s motion to dismiss [] petition for lack of jurisdiction”); In re A.S.W., 391
A.2d 1385, 1389–91 (D.C. 1978) (determining that the Superior Court has
jurisdiction over assaults on employees of District “juvenile facilities taking place
outside, as well as inside, the District”). It would be inconsistent to then require
that a false report of such an assault — a false report that was made to MPD
because of its jurisdiction over the reported crime — be prosecuted elsewhere.
13
intent is necessary for there to be jurisdiction. 8 We conclude that, although an
underlying crime may involve a certain mental state — which naturally will be
discussed 9 when determining where the crime was actually committed — that does
not then mean that there is a second, independent requirement of “intent” to
produce “detrimental effects” in the District of Columbia that would serve as a
prerequisite to our courts asserting jurisdiction.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
When reviewing claims that the evidence at trial was insufficient, “the
relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
8
Though the federal cases discussing venue are not strictly analogous, they
support the same proposition, as they focus on the conduct constituting the crime,
rather than the defendant’s intentions. See, e.g., Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at
279 (emphasizing that “[a]s we confirmed just last Term, the ‘locus delicti of the
charged offense must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the
location of the act or acts constituting it.’ In performing this inquiry, a court
must initially identify the conduct constituting the offense (the nature of the crime)
and then discern the location of the commission of the criminal acts.”) (quoting
Cabrales, 541 U.S. at 6–7) (emphasis added).
9
Our cases certainly mention the defendant’s “intent” at times. See, e.g.,
Ford, 616 A.2d at 1253 (noting that “Ford’s conduct was intended to interfere with
the integrity of the judicial process in the District of Columbia”). However, the
cases do so in the context of discussing what the integral components of particular
offenses are and determining where those elements occurred.
14
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979). The evidence need not compel a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt or negate every possible inference of innocence. See Collins v. United
States, 73 A.3d 974, 985 (D.C. 2013). “When two or more inferences can be
reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to
substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.” Kruse v. District of
Columbia, 171 A.2d 752, 753 (D.C. 1961). After reviewing the trial record, we
conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction.
Appellant first argues that the government did not prove that he “knowingly”
communicated false information to the MPD. See Barrie v. United States, 887
A.2d 29, 32 (D.C. 2005) (“D.C. Code § 5-117.05 makes it a crime to give false
information to the police knowing that information to be false.”) “Knowingly
means that [appellant] acted voluntarily and on purpose, not by mistake or
accident.” Jones v. United States, 813 A.2d 220, 224–25 (D.C. 2002). “[T]he law
permits a court to find [appellant’s] knowledge of the falsity based on reasonable
inferences from concrete facts in evidence.” Willgoos v. United States, 228 A.2d
635, 636 (D.C. 1967) (parentheses omitted).
15
The government presented concrete facts from which a reasonable fact
finder could infer appellant knowingly made a false report to the MPD. First,
surveillance video contradicted appellant’s claim that the youth struck him with a
closed fist on the right side of the head. The video revealed that the youth touched
appellant on the shoulder and that appellant then fell to the floor and lay there as if
unconscious. Contrary to his report, appellant was never struck in the head. The
trial court also noted that the video showed appellant holding the left side of his
face, but he would not have been holding that side of his face had he been hit on
the right side as he reported.
Officer Tran and Detective Bank both testified that they stood close to
appellant while he made his report. However, neither observed any physical injury
or other indication that the youth hit appellant in the head. Though appellant
claims his medical records prove he suffered a head injury and corroborate his
testimony, the trial court noted that the records were not persuasive because they
were general discharge instructions that did not include a medical professional’s
analysis. 10 Thus, a reasonable fact finder could infer from the government’s
evidence that appellant knowingly filed a false police report.
10
Appellant also argues that Officer Tran’s handwritten notes, which read
“swelling,” corroborated appellant’s testimony that he was hit in the head.
(continued…)
16
Appellant also complains that the trial court did not give “any weight” to his
consistent testimony and the other evidence he offered at trial. However, the trial
judge clearly considered appellant’s evidence and testimony but determined that
she “did not find the report credible and the testimony credible from the
defendant.” “It is the role of the trial court to assess the credibility of witnesses,
and this court will not reverse a credibility finding unless it is clearly erroneous or
lacking evidentiary support.” Bolanos v. United States, 938 A.2d 672, 685 (D.C.
2007). Appellant has not met this standard.
Appellant next contends that the evidence showed he was indeed assaulted
— that the youth committed either attempted-battery or intent-to-frighten assault
when he touched appellant’s shoulder. See McGee v. United States, 533 A.2d
1268, 1270 (D.C. 1987) (explaining the two different types of assault). But, as the
trial court noted, even if the touch on the shoulder technically was an assault, this
was not the event reported by appellant.
(…continued)
However, at trial, Officer Tran testified that he did not remember why he wrote
down the word “swelling.”
17
Appellant perhaps asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the
underlying assault was a “matter or occurrence” of which the MPD was “required
to receive reports” or “conduct an investigation.” However, appellant has forfeited
this argument for two reasons. First, he did not present it to the associate judge
reviewing the magistrate judge’s decision. See Bradley v. District of Columbia,
107 A.3d 586, 593 (D.C. 2015) (noting that “absent extraordinary circumstances, a
defendant ordinarily must present in his [motion for review] all the issues to be
raised [on appeal] or else forego their consideration later by this court”) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Second, this argument is presented too perfunctorily to
warrant our consideration. See, e.g., McFarland v. George Washington Univ., 935
A.2d 337, 351 (D.C. 2007) (“Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,
unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.”).
Appellant mentions this argument within a single sentence on appeal. In addition,
that sentence is located in appellant’s jurisdictional argument and never clearly
presented as an argument contesting sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, appellant
has forfeited this argument. 11 In sum, we hold that the evidence presented at trial
was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction. 12
11
Appellant never urged the trial court to acquit him on this basis.
However, the trier of fact was aware that attacks that occur on correctional officers
in the District’s juvenile facilities are punishable under D.C. Code § 22-405, and
the offense may be tried in the Superior Court, even if the assault did not occur at a
(continued…)
18
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of the Superior Court is hereby affirmed.
(…continued)
facility within the geographical bounds of the District. In re A.S.W., 391 A.2d at
1390. She also had learned during the discussions about jurisdiction that the
Mayor has designated MPD to provide assistance “to protect life and property” at
youth facilities “located on property titled in the United States located outside of
the District of Columbia.” Mayor’s Order 88-58 (March 15, 1988).
12
Appellant briefly argues that the court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss and proceeding to trial without first making a finding of probable cause.
This argument is also presented in too perfunctory a fashion to warrant
consideration. In any event, even if appellant was entitled to a pretrial
determination of probable cause, see generally Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103
(1975), any error is rendered harmless by the court’s finding of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. See Williams v. United States, 75 A.3d 217, 222 n.12 (D.C.
2013) (“In effect, a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt negates any doubt
that there was probable cause of guilt.”). Appellant may also be asserting (again
in a perfunctory manner) that the information, quoted in note 2, failed to state an
offense. However, the information charged appellant using the language of D.C.
Code § 5-117.05, and was sufficient to make appellant fully aware of the charges
against him. See, e.g., United States v. Miqueli, 349 A.2d 472, 474–75 (D.C. 1975)
(informations charging offenses in statutory language were “sufficiently definite to
apprise the defendants of the nature of the accusations against them” and
“[n]othing more by way of pleading evidentiary facts was necessary”).