Opinion ID: 1546590
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Elements of Carjacking While Armed

Text: When an appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient for conviction, we inquire only into whether the government presented at least some probative evidence as to each element of the crime, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and recognizing that it is the fact-finder's province to weigh evidence, assess credibility, and draw reasonable inferences. Downing v. United States, 929 A.2d 848, 857 (D.C. 2007) (internal citations omitted). This court, however, reviews de novo the elements of the crime which the prosecution must prove and against which sufficiency of the evidence is assessed. See, e.g., Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818, 827 (D.C.2006) (en banc). Now to the merits. Carjacking is committed when a person [1] knowingly or recklessly [2] uses force or violence to [3] take from another person immediate actual possession of [4] a person's motor vehicle, or when someone attempts to do so. D.C.Code § 22-2803(a)(1). [6] If convicted of carjacking while armed, moreover, the defendant shall be imprisoned for a mandatory-minimum term of not less than 15 years (with a maximum of forty years). Id. §§ 22-2803(b)(1) & (2); see Allen v. United States, 697 A.2d 1, 2 (D.C.1997) (specifying elements of carjacking). Sutton only challenges sufficiency of the evidence to support the second and third elements of carjacking, and he does not question sufficiency of the evidence that he was armed. In describing the Background and Need for the carjacking statute at the time of enactment, the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on the Judiciary emphasized the especially traumatic experience of the victim, whose zone of privacy is invaded in a way that perhaps is similar only to burglary and whose mobility and means of earning a living are taken from him. [7] Thus, the Council likened a carjacking to intrusion into the home, perceived as more seriousmore invasive of one's private, protected environmentthan, say, a robbery on the street. In fact, by imposing a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence for an armed carjacking, the Council put the offense at issue here at a noticeably more serious level of concern than that reflected in the statutes imposing five-year mandatory minimums for first-degree burglary and first-time armed robbery. [8] With such a severe difference at stake in the respective minimum sentences for armed robbery and armed carjacking, the concepts of force or violence and immediate actual possession, as applied in a carjacking prosecution, must be addressed with considerable care.