Opinion ID: 2741034
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applying the Statute

Text: We agree that bolt cutters may be used to commit a crime and that there was abundant evidence that appellant carried them for that purpose. Thus, a cursory comparison of these facts to the title of the statute – “possession of implements of crime” – might lead to the conclusion that appellant is guilty of the crime charged. However, “[t]he significance of the title of the statute should not be exaggerated.” Mitchell v. United States, 64 A.3d 154, 156 (D.C. 2013). “[H]eadings and titles are not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text.” Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528 (1947). We therefore focus our analysis on the text of the statute, which limits its reach to tools and implements “for picking locks or pockets.” Because bolt cutters are not “lockpicking tools” within the definition we have adopted, there was insufficient evidence to sustain J.W.‟s adjudication. We therefore vacate the adjudication for possessing implements of crime. It is so ordered.