In Re RS, 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 605

Appellant R.S. was convicted at a juvenile bench trial of felony assault, carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL), and related offenses arising from a June 25–26, 2007 incident that left the victim with a four-to-six stitch ear laceration and a visible scar.
Victim Stover suffered a facial injury and an ear laceration; medical treatment included four to six stitches and hospital visit the following day.
A.B. carried and displayed a gun during the incident and threats were made; after police arrived, the guns were discarded and later recovered.
The District of Columbia amended D.C. Code § 22-404(a)(2) to create an intermediate felony offense requiring significant bodily injury, defined as injury requiring hospitalization or immediate medical attention.
The trial court found felony assault based on the group’s participation and convicted CPWL, and R.S. challenges both the “significant bodily injury” threshold and operability of the pistol evidence.
The court affirms, holding the evidence supported both felony assault and CPWL by operable evidence or its sufficient circumstantial showing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the injury qualifies as significant bodily injury	R.S. argues Stover's ear injury did not require hospitalization or immediate medical attention	State contends injury meets significant bodily injury threshold	Yes; injury met the threshold for significant bodily injury
Whether the pistol was operable evidence for CPWL	R.S. contends no proof the gun was operable	State shows display and use of the gun as evidence of operability	Yes; totality of evidence supports operability and CPWL conviction

Swinton v. United States, 902 A.2d 772 (D.C. 2006) (describes the high threshold for serious bodily injury under aggravated assault)
Nixon v. United States, 730 A.2d 145 (D.C. 1999) (defined serious bodily injury for comparison to significant bodily injury)
Price v. United States, 813 A.2d 169 (D.C. 2002) (evidence of operability can be circumstantial when gun not recovered)
Peterson v. United States, 657 A.2d 756 (D.C. 1995) (display of a weapon can constitute operability evidence)
Bartley v. United States, 530 A.2d 692 (D.C. 1987) (displaying a weapon can back up threats)
Morrison v. United States, 417 A.2d 409 (D.C. 1980) (robbery context with gun display as coercive factor)
McCraney v. United States, 983 A.2d 1041 (D.C. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255 (D.C. 1987) (standard for reviewing credibility and circumstantial evidence)