Girma Aboye v. United States, 121 A.3d 1245

In Adams Morgan, Girma Aboye (appellant) repeatedly used homophobic slurs toward engaged couple Michael Eichler and Zachary Rosen and threatened to "kill you with my dog."
The couple called 911; Officer Fritts detained Aboye after observing him return with his dog Tarzan; testimony described Tarzan as friendly and Nico (the couple's dog) as small.
Aboye was charged with bias-related threats to do bodily harm under D.C. Code §§ 22-407 and 22-3703 (Bias-Related Crime Act) and convicted after a bench trial.
Aboye appealed, arguing (1) the Bias-Related Crime Act does not cover threats because "threats" are not listed as a "designated act," and (2) insufficient evidence supported a threats conviction because the dog was nonthreatening.
The trial court credited the victims’ testimony about the slurs, the explicit death threat involving the dog, and their resulting fear.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "designated act" in Bias-Related Crime Act includes threats	Gov: "including" is illustrative; statute covers any criminal act under D.C. law	Aboye: list after "including" is exhaustive; threats not covered	Court: "including" is expansionary; §1-301.45(10) confirms "including, but not limited to"; legislative history supports broad coverage; threats included
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove criminal threats under §22-407	Gov: victim testimony of slurs, explicit kill-with-dog statement, demeanor, and victim fear suffice	Aboye: dog was friendly; no evidence dog could physically harm them, so no reasonable fear	Court: Evidence sufficient—ordinary hearer could reasonably fear harm given words, context, dog not a lapdog, prior hostile remarks; victim’s fear probative

Richardson v. United States, 927 A.2d 1137 (statutory interpretation standard applied)
Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 470 A.2d 751 (use of legislative history in interpretation)
Fed. Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 (word "including" normally non-exhaustive)
Gray v. United States, 100 A.3d 129 (elements of criminal threats discussion)
McNeely v. United States, 874 A.2d 371 (vagueness analysis reference)
Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Carrell v. United States, 80 A.3d 163 (mens rea issues in threats jurisprudence referenced)
Clark v. United States, 755 A.2d 1026 (threats as question of fact)
Joiner-Die v. United States, 899 A.2d 762 (variation in wording of required harm for threats)
Dong v. Smithsonian Inst., 125 F.3d 877 (interpretation of "including")
Intercounty Constr. Corp. v. District of Columbia, 443 A.2d 29 (discussion on "include" as expansionary)