James N. Offutt v. United States, 157 A.3d 191

On Aug. 12–13, 2013, Offutt was shot outside his apartment building after an altercation with Dennis Bell; police obtained a warrant to search Offutt’s apartment in connection with the shooting.
While police guarded Offutt’s apartment overnight, Offutt left the hospital, returned at night, and - according to police at the time of the warrant execution - had shattered the balcony glass and removed something from the apartment; officers observed a broken sliding door and disturbed access panel/debris.
Witness evidence included Bell’s account of the shooting and a neighbor (James Lee) who testified to hearing glass breaking and seeing Offutt on/near the balcony; officers testified the door had been intact when first secured.
Offutt testified he could not have climbed onto the balcony due to recent car accident injuries and other physical limitations; he denied breaking into the apartment or removing items.
The jury convicted Offutt of simple assault and tampering with evidence, but acquitted him of related firearms offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with evidence	Offutt: No proof of what specific object was removed, so conviction rests on speculation	Government: Circumstantial evidence (breaking in after police warned, damaged door, disturbed interior, close temporal nexus) permits inference he removed evidence to impair investigation	Affirmed — evidence sufficient for a rational jury to infer intent to conceal/remove evidence related to the shooting
Alleged improper cross-examination about absence of medical records	Offutt: Prosecutor unfairly undermined credibility by noting defense did not introduce records of the prior accident/physical therapy (attorney’s choice)	Government: Cross-examination showed Offutt hadn’t told treating physicians about the accident; pointing out absence of corroborating records was permissible	Any error harmless — questioning was accurate, limited, and not prejudicial

Medley v. United States, 104 A.3d 115 (D.C. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Smith v. United States, 55 A.3d 884 (D.C. 2012) (definition of sufficiency review and reasonable-inference standard)
Schools v. United States, 84 A.3d 503 (D.C. 2013) (jury may not base verdict on mere speculation)
Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (D.C. 2001) (appellate responsibility in sufficiency review)
Brown v. United States, 146 A.3d 110 (D.C. 2016) (evidence need not negate every inference of innocence)
Poulnot v. District of Columbia, 608 A.2d 134 (D.C. 1992) (evaluating circumstantial explanations and coincidences)
State v. Majors, 318 S.W.3d 850 (Tenn. 2010) (tampering conviction supported by circumstantial evidence despite lack of proof of specific item)
Harris v. United States, 602 A.2d 154 (D.C. 1992) (permissibility of arguing absence of corroborating evidence)
Dancy v. United States, 745 A.2d 259 (D.C. 2000) (prosecutor's failure to emphasize disputed evidence can show its insignificance)