Romeo and Juliet Law Washington DC

The District of Columbia has no statute known as a Romeo and Juliet law. What its age-based sexual abuse sections contain instead are age-gap elements: the requirement in D.C. Code §§ 22-3008 and 22-3009 that the actor be at least 4 years older than the child, and the formulation in § 22-3010.01 for a person 18 or older who is more than 4 years older than a child. Those requirements are parts of the offense definition that the prosecution must prove. They are not defenses and they are not exemptions that an accused person invokes. The distinction is not academic. If the age relationship a section names is not established, the offense as that section defines it is not made out, which is a statement about the elements of one section rather than a statement that the conduct is lawful. Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys defend charges brought under Chapter 30 of Title 22. Request a consultation. The firm maintains 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

Age-Gap Requirements Are Elements, Not Exemptions

The difference between an element and an exemption changes how the age gap functions in a case. An element belongs to the government’s case. It is part of what a section says the offense is, and the prosecution has to establish it along with everything else the section requires. An exemption would work the other way, removing conduct from the reach of a statute that otherwise covers it. The age-gap language in §§ 22-3008, 22-3009, and 22-3010.01 sits inside the definition of each offense, which places it on the government’s side of the ledger.

That has a practical consequence people often miss. Falling outside the age gap in one section does not create a protected status. It means that one section, as written, does not describe the conduct alleged. The general sexual abuse sections at §§ 22-3002 through 22-3006 contain no age-gap element at all, and each applies whenever its own elements are present. A close age difference therefore says nothing about whether those sections are available to the government.

This page describes the age-gap language in the sections named above and nothing more. It does not describe an exemption, because these sections define offenses rather than carve conduct out of them.

The Age Gap in the Child Sexual Abuse Sections

First degree child sexual abuse under § 22-3008 applies to a person at least 4 years older than a child who engages in a sexual act with that child, or who causes that child to engage in a sexual act. The penalty is any term of years or life, plus a fine, and the offense is a lifetime registration offense under § 22-4001(6)(B) where the victim is under 13.

Second degree child sexual abuse under § 22-3009 carries the same age-gap requirement and addresses sexual contact rather than a sexual act. A person at least 4 years older than a child who engages in sexual contact with that child faces up to 10 years plus a fine.

Both sections measure the gap against the definition of a child in § 22-3001, which is a person who has not yet attained the age of 16. The same definitional section describes a minor as a person under 18 and defines consent as words or overt actions indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual act or contact in question, providing that lack of resistance resulting from force, threats, or coercion is not consent. Those definitions were amended by D.C. Law 25-175, effective June 8, 2024. The age gap is not a standalone rule about couples of similar age, since it is measured against that definition.

Misdemeanor Sexual Abuse of a Child or Minor Under § 22-3010.01

Section 22-3010.01 uses a different formulation and reaches conduct by separate routes. The first applies to a person 18 or older who is more than 4 years older than a child. The second applies to a person 18 or older who is in a significant relationship with a minor. Either route can support the offense where the person engages in sexually suggestive conduct. The penalty is up to 180 days or a fine, and up to 3 years where the person has 3 or more prior convictions for the same offense.

Those routes matter to anyone who thinks of the age gap as protective. The significant relationship route contains no age-gap requirement, so a small age difference does not remove it from the section. A significant relationship also appears in § 22-3020, which lists as an aggravating circumstance that the victim was under 18 and the actor was in a significant relationship with the victim. Section 22-3020 lists six aggravating circumstances in total and authorizes enhanced penalties up to 1.5 times the statutory maximum. The age-based structure of the chapter is therefore layered rather than binary, and the section number charged determines which layer is in play and what the government must establish.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Washington, D.C. have a Romeo and Juliet law?

The District has no statute by that name. The phrase is used elsewhere and gets applied loosely to D.C. law, but what the D.C. Code contains is age-gap language inside the definitions of offenses at §§ 22-3008, 22-3009, and 22-3010.01. That language describes what the prosecution must prove. It does not create a category of conduct that the chapter leaves alone.

Is the 4-year age gap a defense?

No. It is an element of the sections that contain it. Sections 22-3008 and 22-3009 require the actor to be at least 4 years older than the child, and § 22-3010.01 applies to a person 18 or older who is more than 4 years older than a child. Each of those requirements belongs to the government’s case rather than to yours.

What happens if the age gap is not met?

The offense as that section defines it is not made out, because the age relationship is part of the definition. That conclusion is limited to the section in question. It does not extend to §§ 22-3002 through 22-3006, which define sexual abuse offenses without any age-gap element and apply on their own terms whenever their own elements are present. The section number therefore matters more than the age difference on its own.

Is “at least 4 years older” the same as “more than 4 years older”?

They are different formulations, and the Code uses each in a different place. Sections 22-3008 and 22-3009 use at least 4 years older than the child. Section 22-3010.01 uses more than 4 years older than a child, and adds that the person must be 18 or older. When you read about a four-year rule in general terms, check which section the writer had in mind.

Who counts as a child, and who counts as a minor?

Section 22-3001 defines a child as a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 and a minor as a person under 18. The child sexual abuse sections at §§ 22-3008 and 22-3009 are keyed to the child definition. Section 22-3010.01 uses the child definition for its age-gap route and the minor definition for its significant relationship route, so both definitions can apply.

Does a significant relationship change the analysis?

It opens a route in § 22-3010.01 that does not depend on any age gap: a person 18 or older who is in a significant relationship with a minor and engages in sexually suggestive conduct. The same concept appears in § 22-3020, which lists a victim under 18 with the actor in a significant relationship among its six aggravating circumstances, where enhanced penalties up to 1.5 times the statutory maximum are authorized.

Do close-in-age facts affect sex offender registration?

Registration follows the conviction. Under § 22-4001, registration offenses include any offense under Chapter 30 of Title 22, and first degree child sexual abuse is a lifetime registration offense under § 22-4001(6)(B) when the victim is under 13. Age-gap facts matter to whether a particular section is made out in the first place, not to the operation of the registration provisions once a conviction exists.

Why do people search for a Romeo and Juliet law in the District?

Because other jurisdictions use the phrase, and because D.C. sections do contain numbers that look like the close-in-age rules described elsewhere. The structural difference is what matters. In the District, those numbers sit inside offense definitions, so they describe the conduct a section prohibits rather than granting anyone permission. If you are relying on that distinction, get the section number and read what it requires.

Mr. Sris is the Owner and Founder of the firm and a former prosecutor. He founded the firm in 1997 and is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys practice in criminal defense and handle District charges under Chapter 30 of Title 22, including the age-based sections discussed here. The work begins with the section charged and the elements it names, so that a client understands what the government must establish and what the age-gap language in that section does and does not do. Consultations are held by appointment at the firm’s locations. Request a consultation by calling (888) 437-7747.

This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.