IN RE: Z.B., 131 A.3d 351

Appellant (14) and two others demanded a teenager’s cell phone; appellant threatened to break his jaw and said he would pull a “strap” (understood as a gun).
Victim ran, flagged down police, and gave descriptions; radio broadcasts followed (initial: three young black males; later: 17-year-old black male, 6'2", black jacket, blue gloves, last known location).
Officers, minutes later and two blocks away, saw appellant who largely matched the description (younger, shorter than 6'2", black jacket, ski mask with face exposed, one aqua/blue glove); appellant placed the phone in his pocket upon seeing officers.
Officers stopped appellant, conducted a show-up with the complaining witness who positively identified him; police then arrested him and recovered the stolen phone.
Appellant moved to suppress the identification, his spontaneous statement, and the phone, arguing the seizure lacked reasonable articulable suspicion; he also argued the misdemeanor threats should merge with the robbery conviction.
Trial court denied suppression, convicted on robbery, receiving stolen property (RSP), and two counts of misdemeanor threats, but noted RSP would merge with robbery; appellant appealed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Validity of seizure/show-up (reasonable articulable suspicion)	Seizure invalid because initial descriptions were inaccurate and insufficient to justify stop	Appellant matched key aspects (age, race, clothing, glove); close temporal/spatial proximity justified a Terry stop; show-up produced probable cause	Stop was justified under Terry given totality (imperfect description + close proximity); identification produced probable cause; suppression denied
Double jeopardy/merger of threats with robbery	Threats were part of the robbery and should merge to avoid harsher punishment for threats-based robbery vs. assault-based robbery	Robbery and threats have different statutory elements; threats require uttered menacing words; robbery can be effected by violence or conduct that puts one in fear—distinct offenses	Threats do not merge with robbery under Blockburger/elemental test; merger denied. (Court agreed RSP merges with robbery as noted by trial court.)

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing investigatory stop standard requiring reasonable articulable suspicion)
United States v. Turner, 699 A.2d 1125 (D.C. 1997) (imperfect description plus close spatial/temporal proximity can justify a Terry stop)
Oxner v. United States, 995 A.2d 205 (D.C. 2010) (show-up identification establishing probable cause to arrest)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (elemental test for whether offenses merge under double jeopardy)
Joiner-Die v. United States, 899 A.2d 762 (D.C. 2006) (distinguishing robbery from threats; threats require menacing utterance)
Byrd v. United States, 598 A.2d 386 (D.C. 1991) (reaffirming Blockburger and elemental analysis)
Kaliku v. United States, 944 A.2d 765 (D.C. 2010) (coincidental overlap of offenses does not make one an inherent element of the other)