Boston v. People
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 38
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Boston was convicted of third degree assault, using a dangerous weapon during a crime of violence, and simple assault for events in 2007 on St. John.
- The simple assault conviction centered on alleged street assault against Cockayne after an earlier bar incident; no direct eyewitnesses to the street assault were presented.
- Evidence showed Boston admitted striking Cockayne with a pool cue at the bar and statements were corroborated by his signed admission.
- Witnesses described Boston pursuing Cockayne with others, and a third individual with a stick; around the same time Cockayne sustained blunt force injuries.
- Dr. Landron linked Cockayne’s injuries to blunt force trauma, consistent with being struck by a stick or similar object, and Cockayne later died from stab wounds.
- The court remands for a potentially separate evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct due to co-defendant Thomas’s allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for simple assault | Boston argues insufficient evidence of intentional unlawful violence. | People failed to prove Boston personally assaulted Cockayne streetwise. | Sufficient evidence to sustain simple assault conviction. |
| Juror misconduct remand | Co-defendant Thomas raised juror misconduct issues warranting review. | Boston did not raise juror misconduct, but argues for fairness. | Remand for evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Browne v. People, 55 V.I. 931 (V.I. 2011) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to the People for sufficiency review)
- Mendoza v. People, 55 V.I. 660 (V.I. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review: rational trier of fact can find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Phipps v. People, 54 V.I. 543 (V.I. 2011) (definition of assault and battery and intent under 14 V.I.C. §§ 291, 292)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (manifest injustice when disparate treatment of co-defendants; Rule 2 authority)
- Gambino v. Morris, 134 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 1998) (disparate treatment of identically situated co-defendants can be manifest injustice)
- Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 51 V.I. 341 (V.I. 2009) (appellate waiver standards; Rule 2/22 procedures)