IN RE D.R., 96 A.3d 45

DR, a fourteen-year-old, was found responsible for four offenses: ADW, CDW, possession of a prohibited weapon, and felony threats, based on a large knife wielded during a September 2011 altercation.
The trial court held DR guilty on all counts; DR challenged ineffective assistance of counsel and sufficiency on CDW.
On direct appeal, DR’s ineffective-assistance claim prompted remand for findings; the court also considered evidentiary sufficiency under double jeopardy.
The court held that the CDW adjudication lacked sufficient evidence because it did not prove the weapon was concealable on DR’s person.
The court vacated the CDW adjudication and remanded for a new trial on that count, while sustaining ADW and felony-threat adjudications.
The court clarified that the CPWL statute and PPW provisions remain unaffected by its ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the CDW conviction supported by concealability evidence?	DR contends the knife wasn’t concealable on his person.	Government contends concealability was proven.	CDW not supported; vacate adjudication.
Does the statute’s ‘their person’ mean an average person or the defendant?	Powell approach should apply for conceivability.	Literal, defendant-focused interpretation governs.	Court adopts actual-person interpretation; concealability assessed for defendant.
Does double jeopardy bar retrial on CDW after insufficiency?	New trial should be allowed after remand.	Double jeopardy prevents retrial for insufficient evidence.	Double jeopardy bars new trial on CDW; vacate and remand accordingly.

Powell v. United States, 423 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1975) (concerning concealability—average person standard in context of concealment)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (double jeopardy concerns in retrial when evidence inadequate)
Kelly v. United States, 639 A.2d 86 (D.C. 1994) (double jeopardy and sufficiency principles in DC)
Gorbey v. United States, 54 A.3d 668 (D.C. 2012) (CDW concealment questions with large weapons)
In re P.F., 954 A.2d 949 (D.C. 2008) ( CDW/weapons context in juvenile adjudications)
Wright v. United States, 926 A.2d 1151 (D.C. 2007) (concealability standard for CDW)
Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (interpretation of statutory language; natural meaning)
Parks v. United States, 627 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1993) (ADW/intent; proof of fear not required)
Carrell v. United States, 80 A.3d 163 (D.C. 2013) (threats standard—fear to ordinary hearer)
Campbell v. United States, 450 A.2d 428 (D.C. 1982) (threats/ bodily harm standard)
Gamble v. United States, 30 A.3d 161 (D.C. 2011) (historical context of concealment statute)
Powell v. United States (9th Cir. decisions referenced), 501 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1974) (alternate Powell discussion cited in text)