Augustine v. People
2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 30
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2011Background
- October 3, 2008 shooting involved three police officers (Greaves, Wharton, Allen) confronted Augustine near Lake’s Chicken Fry, Augustine allegedly fired first and fled while continuing to shoot.
- Officers identified Augustine by clothing description; Augustine matched description except for a Rastafarian hat later found at scene.
- Evidence included DNA on hat and handgun, gunshot residue on Augustine’s person, and a blood trail leading to Augustine after the shooting.
- Augustine was convicted in Superior Court on three counts of third-degree assault, three counts of unauthorized use of an unlicensed firearm during a third-degree assault, and one count of first-degree reckless endangerment.
- Appeal challenged sufficiency of the evidence, conviction for third-degree assault, and denial of a fair trial; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict Augustine of third-degree assault | Augustine argues eyewitness unreliability and lack of corroborating DNA/trace evidence. | Augustine contends evidence does not prove he fired with intent to injure. | Sufficient evidence supported conviction; jury could reasonably find Augustine fired at officers. |
| Plain error from Officer Wharton’s remark about prior stops | Wharton’s remark biased the jury against Augustine. | Remark was isolated; trial court admonished jury; no mistrial requested. | Not plain error; remark not sufficiently prejudicial given overwhelming evidence of guilt. |
| Relation of 14 V.I.C. § 2253(a) and § 297(2) (deadly weapon analysis) | Firearm possession under § 2253(a) precludes § 297(2) deadly weapon use. | Statutes create different elements; firearms can be deadly weapons under § 297(2). | Firearms can be deadly weapons under § 297(2); § 2253(a) does not exclude firearm use from § 297(2). |
| Sufficiency of evidence for reckless endangerment in the first degree | Evidence does not show grave risk of death in a public place. | Shooting at officers in public area shows grave risk and public place exists. | Sufficient evidence that shooting in a public place created grave risk of death. |
| Whether trial court’s failure to define 'public place' constitutes plain error | Failure to define 'public place' prejudiced Augustine. | Word is common; no plain error; curative instructions given. | No plain error; failure to define did not amount to reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Bryan v. Gov't of the U.S. Virgin Islands, 17 V.I. 504 (D.V.I. 1980) (two offenses with different required facts (Blockburger application))
- United States v. Taylor, 514 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2008) (plain error review framework for trial errors)
- United States v. Liburd, 607 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 2010) (curative instructions and prejudice assessment)
- Gov’t of the V.I. v. Charleswell, 24 F.3d 571 (3d Cir. 1994) (plain-error standard for mistrial claims)
- State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296, 972 A.2d 691 (2009) (firing a gun near others constitutes grave risk of death)
- State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53, 881 P.2d 1158 (1994) (points to 'grave risk' analysis for reckless endangerment)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932) (two offenses require proof of different elements)