Opinion ID: 1972394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Elements of the Offenses and the Statutory Penalties.

Text: Hicks contends in this court [7] that his convictions for indecent liberties and for enticement for the purpose of taking indecent liberties merge into what he characterizes as the greater offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy. He thus assumes that indecent liberties and enticement are lesser included offenses of AWIS. We disagree. Under the elements test which this court adopted in Byrd v. United States, 598 A.2d 386 (D.C.1991) (en banc), there can be no merger here. Both indecent liberties and enticing contain elements different from those which the government must prove in a prosecution for AWIS. Specifically, indecent liberties requires a prohibited act with a child under the age of sixteen; enticement must also be directed at a child under sixteen, and requires proof that the defendant took, enticed or lured a child to a place for the purpose of taking indecent liberties. See D.C.Code § 22-3501(a); Evans v. United States, 299 A.2d 136, 139-40 (D.C.1973); 1993 Redbook § 4.65 A (indecent liberties); and D.C.Code § 22-3501(b); 1993 Redbook § 4.65 B (enticement). In addition, in order to prove either indecent liberties or enticement, the prosecution must show that the defendant acted with the specific intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of the defendant, the child, or both. Evans, supra, 299 A.2d at 140; 1993 Redbook § 4.65 A & 4.65 B. AWIS, on the other hand, requires proof that the defendant assaulted the complainant and that he did so with the specific intent to commit sodomy. [8] See 1993 Redbook § 4.68. The government need not show that the victim was a child, or that the defendant actually took sexual liberties with the victim or enticed the victim, or that he acted with the specific intent to arouse either the child's sexual desires or his own. Hicks maintains that even if the offenses of which he was convicted have different elements and might not merge under other circumstances, we should hold that they merge in light of the evidence in this case. Assuming, without deciding, that this position would have been tenable on these facts prior to our en banc decision in Byrd, it cannot be successfully maintained now. We held in Byrd, quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), that [w]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires a proof of a fact which the other does not. Byrd, 598 A.2d at 389. We explained that in applying this test, the court looks at the statutorily-specified elements of each offense and not [at] the specific facts of a given case as alleged in the indictment or adduced at trial. Id.; see also D.C.Code § 23-112. We concluded that the Blockburger rule is to be applied in the analysis of multiple punishment issues `in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.' Id. (quoting Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 692, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 1438, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980)). We are therefore precluded from taking the fact-based approach which Hicks seeks to invoke. Moreover, we have held that a lesser included offense must be both lesser and included.  Ball v. United States, 429 A.2d 1353, 1360 (D.C.1981) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Cady, 495 F.2d 742, 747 (8th Cir.1974)). [An] offense with [a] heavier penalty [can]not be regarded as a lesser offense than ... one with [a] lighter penalty. Craig v. United States, 523 A.2d 567, 568 (D.C.1987) (citing Ball, supra, 429 A.2d at 1360). The maximum penalties for the three offenses of which Hicks was convicted are as follows: Maximum Offense Statutory Provision Penalty Indecent liberties with D.C.Code 10 years a child § 22-3501(a) Enticing a child for D.C.Code 5 years purpose of taking indecent § 22-3501(b) liberties Assault with intent to D.C.Code 5 years commit sodomy §§ 22-503, -3502 Accordingly, contrary to Hicks' contention, AWIS cannot be a greater offense than taking indecent liberties or enticement. [9]