343 A.3d 57
D.C.2025Background
- In July 2021, Emanuel Leyton Picon (age 20) was charged after Edwin Hernandez was shot outside a D.C. nightclub; a witness identified Leyton, a shell casing was recovered, and a handgun hidden nearby yielded DNA consistent with Leyton.
- Leyton had no D.C. firearm registration or carry license; he was convicted of multiple offenses including aggravated assault while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.
- Pretrial, Leyton moved to dismiss the age-based licensing/registration offenses, arguing D.C. statutes requiring applicants be 21+ violate the Second Amendment as applied to 18–20 year olds under Bruen.
- At trial Leyton initially told police he did not shoot the victim; he later testified at trial that he did shoot but in self-defense. The government argued this change tracked its DNA/ballistics evidence and impeached his credibility.
- The trial court denied the age-based challenge and allowed limited impeachment about Leyton’s change in story; Leyton objected and appealed both the constitutionality ruling and the prosecutor’s closing argument.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding the age-based statutes are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and that the prosecutor’s comments were permissible impeachment; it remanded to merge overlapping convictions and resentence as needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.C. statutes requiring applicants be 21+ for firearm registration/license violate the Second Amendment as applied to 18–20 year olds | Leyton: age-based rules effect a categorical ban on 18–20 year olds' core Second Amendment rights | District/Government: restrictions are consistent with historical tradition (infancy doctrine, militia statutes, later statutes restricting minors), so valid under Bruen/Rahimi | Court assumed (without deciding) 18–20 are among “the people,” but held statutes constitutional because historical analogues support age-based restrictions to protect public safety and limit minors’ access to arms |
| Whether prosecutor’s argument that Leyton changed his defense after hearing DNA/ballistics testimony was improper (violating Griffin/Jenkins) | Leyton: prosecutor’s closing impermissibly drew on his pretrial silence/change and effectively penalized him for not testifying earlier | Government: permissible impeachment of a defendant who testified; Portuondo permits arguing tailoring when defendant takes the stand; D.C. precedent follows Portuondo | Court applied Teoume-Lessane (adopting Portuondo) and held the prosecutor’s argument was not improper; no reversible misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (history-and-tradition test for evaluating firearm regulations)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (clarifies Bruen; courts must ask why and how a regulation burdens the right)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess handguns in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the States)
- Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000) (when defendant testifies, prosecutor may argue tailoring/impeach credibility)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prohibits adverse inference from a defendant’s silence)
- Teoume-Lessane v. United States, 931 A.2d 478 (D.C. 2007) (D.C. court adopted Portuondo and allowed argument about tailoring when defendant testifies)
- National Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Bondi, 133 F.4th 1108 (11th Cir. 2025) (en banc) (historical analysis supporting age-21 firearm-purchase restrictions)
- McCoy v. ATF, 140 F.4th 568 (4th Cir. 2025) (upholds federal handgun-sale restriction to 21+ based on historical tradition)
- Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, 121 F.4th 96 (10th Cir. 2024) (upholds state age-21 purchase restriction; finds minimum-age rules consistent with safety-related tradition)