In re D.P., 122 A.3d 903

Sixteen-year-old D.P. and two schoolmates confronted and fought with 15-year-old M.G. on a crowded Metrobus; the altercation lasted ~14 seconds and was captured on security video.
M.P. led the group and struck M.G.; D.P. and I.C. followed and exchanged blows amid passenger intervention; the teens exited when the bus stopped.
M.G. briefly lost consciousness after apparently hitting her head on a pole, was assisted by a friend, declined hospital transport, and reported only minor headaches for a few days and some facial bruising.
Government charged D.P. (and co-defendants) with aggravated assault and assault with significant bodily injury; M.P. pled to simple assault; I.C. apparently not adjudicated; D.P. was tried and adjudicated delinquent.
At trial the government proceeded on an aider-and-abettor theory and relied on D.C.Code § 22-404.01(a)(2) (aggravated assault — extreme indifference/gross recklessness theory) and the felony-assault statute defining "significant bodily injury."
On appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence de novo and reversed: evidence insufficient to prove aggravated assault mens rea or that M.G. suffered "significant bodily injury;" remanded to enter conviction for simple assault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved aggravated assault under § 22-404.01(a)(2) (conduct under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life)	D.P. participated in a group attack that continued until M.G. was knocked unconscious, showing gross recklessness/depraved-heart malice	The brief, unarmed 14-second fight on a crowded bus does not show extreme indifference or depraved-heart mental state	Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove the heightened mens rea required for aggravated assault (gross recklessness/depraved-heart malice)
Whether M.G. suffered "significant bodily injury" (felony assault) requiring "hospitalization or immediate medical attention"	The brief unconsciousness and bruising plus EMT involvement show injury requiring immediate attention	Injuries were minor: brief blackout, minor headaches for days, no hospital treatment or ongoing medical care — insufficient as a matter of law	Reversed — evidence insufficient to show injury required medical treatment beyond first aid or hospitalization; not "significant bodily injury"
Whether conviction should be reduced/recategorized given insufficiency	Government argued convictions could stand (or merge)	D.P. argued both charged offenses lacked essential elements and thus conviction must be vacated	Court remanded to enter conviction for simple assault (lesser included offense) and vacated felony adjudications

Perry v. United States, 36 A.3d 799 (D.C. 2011) (defines aggravated-assault mens rea under § 22-404.01(a)(2) as requiring gross recklessness/depraved-heart malice)
Quintanilla v. United States, 62 A.3d 1261 (D.C. 2013) ("immediate medical attention" means treatment beyond diagnosis and first-aid)
Nero v. United States, 73 A.3d 153 (D.C. 2013) (explains what injuries qualify as requiring immediate medical attention)
Teneyck v. United States, 112 A.3d 906 (D.C. 2015) (clarifies objective standard for "immediate medical attention" and distinguishes hospital visits that do not show necessity of treatment)
Blair v. United States, 114 A.3d 960 (D.C. 2015) (upheld felony-assault where injuries and need for hospital monitoring/testing supported "significant" injury)
Owens v. United States, 982 A.2d 310 (D.C. 2009) (aggravated-assault upheld where severe repeated blows produced fatal/internal injuries)
In re D.E., 991 A.3d 1205 (D.C. 2010) (affirming aggravated-assault context involving continued violent beating causing severe injuries)
Comber v. United States, 584 A.2d 26 (D.C. 1990) (discusses depraved-heart malice examples and mental state for second-degree murder)