Alston v. United States

── Alston v. United States ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-CM-0182 KHARI ALSTON, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2023-DVM-000816) (Hon. Elizabeth Carroll Wingo, Trial Judge) (Submitted June 3, 2025 Decided March 12, 2026 *) Nigel A. Barrella was on the briefs for appellant. Matthew M. Graves, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, Edward R. Martin, Jr., United States Attorney at the time the supplemental brief was filed, and Chrisellen R. Kolb, Nicholas P. Coleman, and Elizabeth Gabriel, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the briefs for appellee. Before MCLEESE and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and GLICKMAN, Senior Judge. * The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published upon the court’s grant of appellee’s motion to publish.  2 SHANKER, Associate Judge: Appellant Khari Alston approached his former partner, Fataya Bigesby, outside of her apartment building, snatched her purse from her, followed her while demanding that she stop ignoring him, pushed her when she continued to do so, and then flung her purse into the street, where passing cars ran over the purse and its contents. Following a bench trial in the Superior Court, the trial court convicted Mr. Alston of one count each of second-degree theft and simple assault and imposed a suspended term of imprisonment and twelve months of probation. On appeal, Mr. Alston contends that, with respect to his theft conviction, the government was required, but failed, to prove that he intended to permanently deprive Ms. Bigesby of her property at the moment that he took it—that his guilty mind must have concurred with his unlawful act. Regarding his assault conviction, Mr. Alston argues that the government was required, but failed, to put forth sufficient evidence that he intended to physically injure (or cause apprehension of physical injury in) Ms. Bigesby. We affirm. With respect to his theft conviction, Mr. Alston’s argument rests on the assumption that he had to have the requisite intent when he initially took Ms. Bigesby’s purse. The theft statute, however, allows for conviction not only where a defendant wrongfully takes property, but also where a defendant  3 wrongfully uses—for example, disposes of without permission—property. Because the trial court found (both at trial and following a record remand by this court), and a reasonable factfinder could have found, that Mr. Alston both (1) threw Ms. Bigesby’s property, without permission, into a road with oncoming cars and (2) intended at that time to permanently deprive Ms. Bigesby of her property, the record presents no concurrence problem. Turning to Mr. Alston’s assault conviction, the record reveals sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Alston of nonsexual offensive touching assault, for which an intent to cause physical injury (or apprehension thereof) is not required. I. Background A. Factual Background On the morning of July 18, 2023, Ms. Bigesby was returning to her apartment building on 7th Street, NW, after dropping off her child—of whom Mr. Alston is the father—at daycare. As she neared the building’s