RAMON R. CHERRY v. UNITED STATES
164 A.3d 922
D.C.2017Background
- On June 16, 2014, Cherry’s car jumped a curb and struck a wall beside a convenience store; he exited the vehicle and walked toward the store while a crowd gathered.
- Officers arrived within about one minute; Cherry was among a group asked if they had seen anything but did not identify himself as the driver.
- Cherry walked to the corner, touched the driver’s door, and then continued out of camera view toward the store; about two minutes after the crash he was off camera.
- Officer Schmoeller soon viewed store surveillance footage, recognized Cherry as the driver, searched the neighborhood, and did not find him.
- Approximately twelve minutes after the collision Cherry returned to the car, identified himself to officers, admitted he left because “there were people around,” and was arrested for violating D.C. Code § 50-2201.05c(a)(2).
- The magistrate convicted Cherry; the reviewing judge affirmed. The D.C. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, addressing statutory interpretation and sufficiency-of-evidence questions.
Issues
| Issue | Cherry's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 50-2201.05c(a)(2) requires drivers to give identifying information to law enforcement even if they already gave it to the property owner | Magistrate erred: statute requires providing info to owner first; no categorical duty to also give law enforcement info | Reviewing judge read statute to require immediate ID to owner or law enforcement | Court: statute requires ID to owner/operator first; only if owner/operator not present must driver provide ID to law enforcement/911; vacated/remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether the adverb “immediately” in § 50-2201.05c(a) applies to the duty to provide identifying information | “Immediately” does not modify “provide identifying information”; it modifies “stop” (and related urgent acts) | “Immediately” modifies the obligation to provide identifying information | Court: “immediately” better reads to modify stopping (and urgent acts); not the provide-ID obligation |
| Timing for providing identifying information when owner/operator is present | Driver need not provide ID instantaneously but must do so without unreasonable delay | Government: driver must provide ID immediately | Court: driver must provide identifying information without unreasonable delay (not an unlimited delay) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence that Cherry violated § 50-2201.05c(a)(2) | Argued evidence insufficient because he might have notified owner or law enforcement off-camera | Government: facts support inference Cherry left without providing ID and the 12-minute delay was unreasonable | Court: viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational fact-finder could conclude Cherry failed to provide ID and his 12-minute absence was unreasonably delayed; evidence sufficient to permit conviction on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Freundel v. United States, 146 A.3d 375 (D.C. 2016) (de novo review on statutory interpretation)
- Hawkins v. United States, 103 A.3d 199 (D.C. 2014) (remand when bench verdict may rest on incorrect legal basis)
- Brooks v. United States, 130 A.3d 952 (D.C. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Seher v. District of Columbia, 95 F.2d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1938) (earlier statute interpreted to require stopping within a reasonable distance)
- Oden v. District of Columbia, 79 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1935) (statutory purpose to secure driver identification)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (use of interruptive punctuation in statutory construction)
- Lockhart v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 958 (2016) (rules on modifier scope and parallel lists)