Darren Cheeks v. United States, 168 A.3d 691

Darren Cheeks was tried with a co-defendant for assault with significant bodily injury (ASBI) while armed and related counts after Michael Harris was stabbed and beaten; Cheeks was unarmed and prosecuted on an aiding-and-abetting theory.
Harris testified he was first stabbed by another assailant, then encountered Cheeks and another man who beat, kicked, and stomped him; medical staff ordered CAT scans and other diagnostics before discharging Harris.
The government requested a lesser-included instruction on unarmed ASBI (based on the beating injuries) in the event the jury found Cheeks did not know the principal was armed; the trial court granted it over Cheeks’s objection.
The jury sent a note asking for clarification of the aiding-and-abetting instruction “specifically for the assault w[ith] significant injury.” The court answered in writing that the aiding-and-abetting instruction “applies to every offense with which the defendants are charged.” Counsel were not shown the full jury note containing a crossed-out question.
The jury acquitted Cheeks of armed ASBI but convicted him of unarmed ASBI (and simple assault); Cheeks appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence supported instructing the jury on unarmed ASBI as a lesser-included offense and (2) the court’s response to the jury note failed to clarify mens rea for aiding-and-abetting unarmed ASBI.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cheeks)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
1) Whether the court erred by giving a lesser-included instruction on unarmed ASBI	The non-stabbing beating injuries were insufficient to support "significant bodily injury," so the lesser instruction should not have been given	The head/face injuries and emergency diagnostic testing (CAT scans) supported a finding of "significant bodily injury" even without surgical treatment	Affirmed: sufficient evidence (diagnostic testing/monitoring need) justified instructing unarmed ASBI as a lesser-included offense
2) Whether the court abused discretion in responding to the jury's note about aiding-and-abetting mens rea for ASBI	The court’s brief written reply failed to dispel probable jury confusion about the mens rea required to convict as an aider/abettor of unarmed ASBI; trial judge should have given the requested explicit clarification or reread instructions	The written response made clear Instruction 3.2 (including the mens rea sentence) applied to all offenses; jurors had written copies and separate ASBI instruction stated the mens rea, so no prejudice	Affirmed by majority: no abuse of discretion — the clarification was adequate; dissent would reverse on this point

Quintanilla v. United States, 62 A.3d 1261 (D.C. 2013) (construed "significant bodily injury" to require hospitalization or immediate medical attention, but recognized diagnostic testing/monitoring can satisfy the definition)
Blair v. United States, 114 A.3d 960 (D.C. 2015) (affirmed ASBI conviction where repeated head blows led to diagnostic testing to rule out internal injury; testing justified "immediate medical attention")
Beaner v. United States, 845 A.2d 525 (D.C. 2004) (lesser-included instruction permitted only when evidence could rationally support conviction of lesser but not greater offense)
Tucker v. United States, 871 A.2d 453 (D.C. 2005) (standard for sufficiency supporting lesser-included instructions: any evidence, however weak, is enough if a jury could rationally convict on the lesser)
Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818 (D.C. 2006) (mens rea required for an offense is generally the same for principals and aider-and-abettors)
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1946) (when jury expresses confusion, the trial judge must dispel it with concrete accuracy)