Andrew L. Weems v. United States, 191 A.3d 296

Appellant Andrew Weems was arrested in Wal‑Mart after an employee observed him remove multiple watches and bite off security tags; an off‑duty MPD officer (Webster) arrested him and took the watches briefly before returning them to Wal‑Mart asset‑protection staff.
While handcuffed in the store office, Weems made angry statements to Wal‑Mart staff that led to misdemeanor threats charges; the government later amended those to attempted threats.
Wal‑Mart's surveillance footage and the security tags were not preserved; the store later reported the video was lost in a hard‑drive crash. The watches were not produced at trial; a Wal‑Mart "training receipt" describing the watches was produced and admitted.
Weems moved to dismiss or obtain sanctions under Superior Court Criminal Rule 16 for the government's failure to preserve/produce the watches, tags, and video. The trial court denied relief.
Weems also challenged the court's grant of the government's pretrial motion to amend the information, arguing the amendment eliminated his statutory jury‑trial right. The trial court allowed the amendment.
The Superior Court bench convicted Weems; the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Weems' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 16 required the government to preserve/produce Wal‑Mart surveillance video and security tags (items held by Wal‑Mart employees)	These items were effectively within the prosecution team's control because Wal‑Mart employees cooperated with police; government should have preserved/produced them under Rule 16	Items were never in government's possession, custody, or control; private‑party evidence is not covered unless government had legal right to obtain it on demand	The court held Rule 16 did not apply to evidence that was only in private hands; no Rule 16 violation for failure to preserve video/tags because government lacked possession/custody/control
Whether government's amendment of the information (reducing threats to attempted threats) before trial prejudiced Weems by eliminating his statutory right to a jury trial	Amendment deprived Weems of statutory jury‑trial right and prejudiced his preparation/strategy	Rule 7(e) permits amendment before verdict if no substantial prejudice; attempted threats is a lesser/non‑different offense and no substantial prejudice shown	The court held amendment was permissible and did not abuse discretion; Weems failed to show prejudice or that his substantial rights were impaired

Nelson v. United States, 649 A.2d 301 (D.C. 1994) (no Rule 16 obligation to produce evidence not in government's possession)
Robinson v. United States, 825 A.2d 318 (D.C. 2003) (government must secure evidence from another government agency when prosecution team has right/access)
Myers v. United States, 15 A.3d 688 (D.C. 2011) (Rule 16 duties derive from evidence being within government's possession, custody, or control)
Koonce v. District of Columbia, 111 A.3d 1009 (D.C. 2015) (trial court weighs bad faith, importance of evidence, and proof of guilt in sanction decisions)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (absent bad faith, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not violate due process)