## Facts

- Police observed Clinton R. Simms assisting a group in lifting a parked Volkswagen Jetta onto a tow truck, including placing boards under the car near a jack.
- A computerized check identified the Jetta as stolen; its owner later testified it had been stolen recently and recovered stripped of parts.
- Simms presented defense testimony that the Jetta appeared abandoned in bushes and had been seen in the area over weeks.
- Simms testified he believed the car was abandoned or possibly stolen but claimed he did not know which; he helped move the car and evaluated parts for possible use on another vehicle.
- Simms was found guilty in an administrative bench proceeding of tampering with a vehicle under 18 DCMR § 1105.2(a), fined, and given a suspended jail sentence with probation; the Superior Court affirmed on review.

## Issues

1. Whether the fact-finder erred by refusing to accept an abandonment defense to vehicle tampering.
2. Whether, for vehicle tampering as a general-intent offense, Simms established a mistake-of-fact defense by proving an honest and reasonable belief that the vehicle was abandoned (or not “another’s” vehicle).
3. Whether the hearing commissioner lacked authority to impose incarceration based on alleged defects in promulgation of the regulation (raised but conceded and not decided).

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction.
- The court treated tampering with a vehicle under 18 DCMR § 1105.2(a) as a general-intent offense.
- The court held a mistake-of-fact defense may be available to a general-intent charge, but only if the defendant proves to the fact-finder that the mistake was both honest and reasonable.
- The court concluded the record supported the fact-finder’s rejection of Simms’s abandonment and mistake-of-fact theories, given the vehicle’s recent theft, the location, and Simms’s own statements reflecting uncertainty about whether it was stolen.
- The court declined to address the regulatory-authority/jurisdiction argument because it was effectively withdrawn at oral argument.

## Legal Principles

- Tampering with another’s vehicle under 18 DCMR § 1105.2(a) is a general-intent offense.
- In a general-intent prosecution, a defendant may assert mistake of fact only by proving the mistake was both (1) honest and (2) reasonable to the satisfaction of the fact-finder.
- Whether a claimed mistake is honest and reasonable is primarily a credibility and fact question for the trier of fact; appellate review is limited to whether the record supports the findings.
- A claim that property appeared “abandoned” does not defeat a tampering charge when objective circumstances support that the property remained another’s and undermine the reasonableness of the claimed belief.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Simms’s vehicle-tampering conviction because the fact-finder could reasonably conclude the car was not abandoned and that Simms failed to prove an honest and reasonable mistake of fact negating culpability under the general-intent regulation.


Simms v. District of Columbia, 612 A.2d 215 (D.C. 1992)