Chinnery v. People
2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 14
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2011Background
- Chinnery was charged with two counts of unlawful sexual contact in the first degree involving a 13-year-old on St. John; trial jury selection involved Batson-based challenges to Jurors 3 and 4, with Juror 3 seated after the court allowed only one strike.
- The Superior Court denied one of Chinnery’s peremptory strikes after a Batson challenge, seating Juror 3 over Chinnery’s objection.
- Evidence included testimony from the alleged victim, her sister, and Parsil, plus testimony by witnesses about Chinnery’s prior acts; the court admitted prior-bad-acts testimony under Rule 404(b).
- Chinnery was convicted on February 18, 2009; the Superior Court sentenced him on April 14, 2009 to fifteen years’ imprisonment and memorialized the judgment on May 7, 2009.
- On appeal, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court addresses (a) Batson preservation and application, (b) the admissibility of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b), and (c) the remedy for Batson error, ultimately reversing and remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Batson properly preserved and applied? | Chinnery preserved Batson; the court erred by skipping prima facie analysis. | People contend Chinnery waived preservation and that the court correctly applied Batson. | Batson issue preserved; court erred by not conducting proper Batson analysis. |
| Did the Superior Court correctly conduct Batson steps 1–3? | Court failed to establish prima facie case and misapplied race-neutral explanations. | Court appropriately analyzed strikes and explained race-neutral reasons. | Court erred by skipping prima facie showing and misapplying step two; remand for new trial. |
| What remedy follows Batson error in Virgin Islands law? | Rivera controls; per se reversal may be required for due process. | Harmless error may apply; Rivera allows non-per se remedy in some cases. | Remand for new trial as due process remedy; Batson error here not harmless. |
| Was admission of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) proper? | Evidence probative of intent and relationship to the charged crime; not character. | Evidence is prejudicial and should have been excluded. | Admission not error; 404(b) properly applied with probative purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory challenges; requires fair voir dire analysis)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 143 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (per se reversal not required for all Batson errors; good-faith misapplication may be harmless)
- Martinez-Salazar v. United States, 528 U.S. 304 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (harmless error standard for Batson analysis applied to Rule 24(b) context)
- United States v. Cross, 308 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2002) (reiterates Rule 404(b) requirements and probative- prejudicial balance)
- Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707 (3d Cir. 2004) (recording of Batson challenges; record need not include venire statistics)