Sandwick v. District of Columbia, 21 A.3d 997

Sandwick charged May 2009 with leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injuries under D.C.Code § 50-2201.05(a)(2) and convicted in a bench trial January 2010.
Evidence showed Shore was struck while crossing 16th Street; Shore injured and transported to hospital; Lahaie witnessed the collision; Sandwick claimed the window shattered and he did not know what happened.
Sandwick testified he did not know about the accident; his wife claimed the truck window blew in; trial court credited government witnesses and found Sandwick knew of the collision and the injury.
Defense argued the statute requires knowledge of both the accident and injury; government argued knowledge of the collision suffices to trigger duty to stop and investigate.
Appellant challenges: (1) wrong mental state; (2) defective information; (3) failure to preserve evidence; (4) insufficient evidence. Court denies relief and affirms.
Court held that knowledge of the collision suffices; information was adequate; no plain error in failure to sanction for lost photos; evidence supported conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What mental state is required under § 50-2201.05(a)(1)?	Sandwick argues the statute requires knowledge of both collision and injury.	Sandwick contends the trial court misapplied the knowledge standard; government contends knowledge of collision suffices.	Knowledge of collision suffices; no requirement for knowledge of injury.
Was the charging information sufficient to allege knowledge before leaving the scene?	Information failed to allege knowledge of the accident and injury.	Information adequately described the date, basic facts, and statutory language.	Information sufficient to give fair notice; no error.
Did the government’s failure to preserve photographs warrant dismissal or sanctions under Rule 16?	Failure to preserve photographs violated Rule 16 and should have sanctioned.	No plain error; defense did not request sanctions; discretion to sanction lies with trial court.	No plain error; trial court did not err in declining sanctions.
Was there sufficient evidence to support Sandwick's conviction?	Evidence did not prove he struck Shore or knew of the injury.	Testimony supported collision, injury, and Sandwick's conduct after the impact.	Evidence, viewed in the government’s favor with credibility deferment, supported conviction.

Hall v. United States, 343 A.2d 35 (D.C.1975) (indictment language and statutory framework sufficiency)
Bradford, 482 A.2d 430 (D.C.1984) (liberal construction of informations; notice sufficiency; double jeopardy considerations)
Clemons v. United States, 400 A.2d 1048 (D.C.1979) (prejudice and notice in information; fair notice standard)
Yoon v. United States, 594 A.2d 1056 (D.C.1991) (sanctions and discretion under Rule 16 factors)
Wiggins v. United States, 521 A.2d 1146 (D.C.1987) (sanctions considerations under Rule 16 in nondisclosure)
Bean v. United States, 17 A.3d 635 (D.C.2011) (Rule 16 discovery obligations; preservation and disclosure duties)
Chemalali v. District of Columbia, 655 A.2d 1226 (D.C.1995) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; credibility determinations)
Mattete v. United States, 902 A.2d 113 (D.C.2006) (deference to trial court credibility; standard for bench trial review)