Browne v. People
2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 45
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2011Background
- Marcella Browne was convicted as an accessory after the fact under 14 V.I.C. §12(a) for making a false statement to police.
- Shooting on December 25, 2007 in a St. Croix public housing community left two dead and three injured; Jeffrey Browne and Melendez were suspects.
- Police learned Browne and Melendez may have been involved and that Browne’s Hyundai Brio was used; Browne’s home was searched and she was asked to come to the station.
- Browne gave a statement asserting she left at midnight with Jeffrey’s vehicle; later, in February 2008, Browne admitted this statement was false.
- Superior Court denied a judgment of acquittal and Browne was convicted; on appeal, it was argued the People failed to prove Browne knew of the crime and the principal’s participation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge of the crime and principal’s participation is required | Browne’s knowledge of the crime and the suspects’ involvement. | Browne lacked actual knowledge of the shooting by Jeffrey and Melendez. | Knowledge of the crime and participation required; mere awareness insufficient. |
| Whether Browne’s false statement supports accessory liability | False exculpatory statement supports aiding in avoiding apprehension. | False statement alone does not prove knowledge of the crime. | False statement alone insufficient to prove accessory after the fact absent knowledge of crime. |
| Whether the information sufficiently put Browne on notice of underlying charges | Information provided fair notice of underlying charges. | Argument later abandoned; no impact if deficient. | Superseding information sufficient; waiver discussed separately. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Thomas-St. John Bd. of Elections v. Daniel, 49 V.I. 322 (V.I. 2007) (plenary review of law; clear-error standard for facts)
- United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements of accessory after the fact include knowledge of crime and principal’s participation)
- United States v. Wesley, 55 F. App’x 47 (3d Cir. 2002) (actual knowledge of crime and participation required)
- United States v. Nusraty, 867 F.2d 759 (2d Cir. 1989) (false statement alone does not prove knowledge of involvement)