In re D.D.

This case is not about the breadth of a statute. It is rather about the right of an accused, whether juvenile or adult, to defend against a criminal charge. It is also about the sufficiency of the evidence to have proven the charged crime. I agree with the appellant, D.D., that the evidence adduced (including any permissible inference that could be drawn therefrom) at his *1099juvenile delinquency hearing1 was insufficient to have supported a finding of guilt for theft under D.C.Code §§ 22-3811, - 3812 (1996). I also agree that the evidence was sufficient to have supported a finding of guilt for…