Powell v. United States, 238 A.3d 954

Bench trial: Carina Victoria Powell convicted of one count of intent-to-frighten assault after an encounter with two MPD officers; she appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence.
Officers Khah and Keenon were responding to a domestic-dispute call with lights/siren; Powell allegedly kicked the officers’ vehicles while crossing the street.
Officer Keenon drew an ASP baton upon exiting her cruiser (video shows this occurred before Powell pivoted toward officers); officers ordered Powell to back up, then approached her.
Powell pivoted, walked quickly toward Officer Keenon to within arm’s reach, insulted the officer, and twice/three times reached toward her ankles/socks; she did not raise her hands above her waist or visibly display a weapon.
Officer Keenon struck Powell with the ASP; trial court credited Officer Khah’s testimony and BWC footage and found Powell’s approach menacing and sufficient for intent-to-frighten assault.
The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence was insufficient (particularly as to mens rea); Judge McLeese dissented and would have affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Powell)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence — actus reus: whether Powell’s conduct was a "threatening act" that would reasonably create fear of immediate injury	Powell’s hostile approach, vehicle-kicking, refusal to back off, and reaching toward ankles constituted menacing conduct that could cause reasonable fear	Powell’s movements and words were expressions of anger or responses to officers’ escalation; video shows she was not initially walking toward officers and did not display fists or a weapon	Reversed as to sufficiency: actus reus was a close question; video undermined trial court’s finding that the approach caused the officer to draw the ASP, and facts were insufficiently menacing under the totality of circumstances
Sufficiency of evidence — mens rea: whether Powell intended to engender fear (or was at least reckless)	At minimum Powell was reckless as to creating fear by approaching an officer who had drawn a baton after she kicked cruisers and refused orders	Powell’s conduct may reflect distraction, anger toward others, or surprise; her question to the officer (“what are you going to do that for?”) suggests she did not intend to menace the officers	Reversed: court found no adequate proof Powell intended to cause apprehension; even assuming recklessness suffices, the close facts did not show a reasonable person would have recognized the danger; reasonable doubt exists

In re D.P., 122 A.3d 903 (D.C. 2015) (standard of review for sufficiency claims)
Solon v. United States, 196 A.3d 1283 (D.C. 2018) (sufficiency standard: any rational trier of fact)
Joiner-Die v. United States, 899 A.2d 762 (D.C. 2006) (elements of intent-to-frighten assault)
Parks v. United States, 627 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1993) (mens rea: intent to cause injury or create apprehension)
Robinson v. United States, 506 A.2d 572 (D.C. 1986) (actus reus inquiry focuses on whether conduct would portend immediate danger to a reasonable person)
Cousart v. United States, 144 A.3d 27 (D.C. 2016) (mere words alone insufficient for a threatening act)
Vines v. United States, 70 A.3d 1170 (D.C. 2013) (infer intent from act when natural and probable consequence)
Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818 (D.C. 2006) (fact-finder may assess credibility; en banc decision cited)
Flores v. United States, 37 A.3d 866 (D.C. 2011) (recklessness defined via knowledge of dangerousness)
Hernandez v. United States, 129 A.3d 914 (D.C. 2016) (deferential review standard for sufficiency claims)
Corbin v. United States, 120 A.3d 588 (D.C. 2015) (inference that defendant intended natural and foreseeable consequences)
Buchanan v. United States, 32 A.3d 990 (D.C. 2011) (discussion on mens rea for intent-to-frighten assault)
United States v. Lee, 199 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 1999) (discussion whether recklessness suffices for intent-to-frighten assault)