Browne v. People
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 9
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Jeffrey Browne was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and related offenses for a Christmas 2007 shooting in a Virgin Islands public housing community.
- Witnesses identified Browne as the driver of the car used in the shooting; Melendez fired shots from the passenger seat.
- The car was later seized; a search warrant executed, yielding a bulletproof vest and spent shotgun shell linked to the shooting.
- Two victims, Burke and McIntosh, died from gunshot wounds; multiple others were wounded.
- The defense challenged the seizure of Browne’s car, the admissibility of a co-defendant’s statement, and the use of death certificates; other trial rulings were contested, including venue, rebuttal witnesses, and juror disclosures.
- The Superior Court denied Browne’s motions in several respects; Browne appealed, and the Virgin Islands Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seizure and search of Browne’s vehicle | Browne argues the car was seized without probable cause or a warrant | County argues automobile exception/independent probable cause justified later search | affirmed admission of evidence obtained under a warrant despite initial seizure |
| Admission of Marcella Browne’s February 4, 2008 statement | Statement implicates Browne; violates Confrontation Clause | Statement is not facially imputing Browne; Bruton does not apply | admission permissible as Bruton-compliant; harmless error due to other strong evidence |
| Admission of Burke and McIntosh death certificates | Certificates are testimonial and should be cross-examined; their admission violates Confrontation Clause | Certificates admissible as routine records but not testimonial | admission violated Confrontation Clause but deemed harmless error |
| Rebuttal witnesses and discovery/privilege issues | Defendant needed to present rebuttal witnesses; exclusion harmed defense | Trial court correctly limited disclosure and privileged testimony | exclusion cured by strong other evidence; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Change of venue and pretrial publicity; juror disclosure | Pretrial publicity prejudiced St. Croix; venue should have shifted | Articles were largely factual and remote in time; no presumption of prejudice | change of venue denial affirmed; no reversible error based on voir dire or juror disclosures |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (co-defendant statements grip confrontation rights; severance by limiting instruction)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination or unavailability)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (non-testifying codefendant confessions with limiting instruction; Bruton exceptions)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (independent source doctrine; evidence found under valid warrant not tainted by initial illegal entry)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic affidavits are testimonial and subject to confrontation)