Opinion ID: 2067034
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tucker's Claims

Text: Tucker argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for AWIRWA [3] and the related PFCV conviction. [4] As to the AWIRWA conviction, he does not claim that the government failed to prove the elements of assault or failed to prove that he was armed, but he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he acted with specific intent to commit the offense of robbery upon the complainant. Singleton, supra note 3, 488 A.2d at 1367 n. 2. However, [i]t is well established that the jury may infer the intent to rob from the `totality of the evidence.' Id. at 1367 (citations omitted); see also Long v. United States, 687 A.2d 1331, 1346 (D.C.1996) (holding that intent to rob can be established when the government has presented facts that suffice as circumstantial evidence to warrant an inference of the intent of the robbery) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have no trouble concluding that the evidence here was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Tucker assaulted Young with the intent to rob him. To be sure, as Tucker argues, there was no evidence that Tucker demanded that Young hand over his money, and no evidence that Tucker announced that he was performing a stick-up. But an inference of intent to rob may be drawn not only from the words uttered [] but also from [the] conduct. Owens v. United States, 497 A.2d 1086, 1090 (D.C.1985) (reasoning that [t]here is no requirement that a defendant announce his intent). Tucker's action of drawing a gun while uttering what about me? leaves little if any room for doubt that Tucker intended to put Young in apprehension of danger and thereby to force Young to give Tucker something of value. [5] Because the evidence was sufficient to establish Tucker's intent to rob Young, and because Tucker does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to his assaulting Mr. Young while in possession of a firearm, Tucker's challenge to the related PFCV conviction also fails. The assault with intent to rob made Tucker's offense a crime of violence within the meaning of D.C.Code §§ 22-4501(f) and -4504(b).