Fontaine v. People
56 V.I. 571
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Fontaine was convicted at trial of voluntary manslaughter and related offenses tied to a March 7, 2009 nightclub shooting in St. Thomas.
- The record shows Ruben George identified Fontaine as shooter; the People argued Fontaine was guilty as principal or as aider and abettor.
- Trial procedures included a surveillance video narration by an officer who was not present at the scene; juror questions were solicited and answered in court.
- Fontaine requested a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on Ruben's testimony; the court instructed on lesser included offense.
- The Court reverses and remands for a new trial due to abuse of discretion in narrating the surveillance video; issues on juror questions and charging theory remain to be reconsidered on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for voluntary manslaughter | Fontaine’s accomplice theory insufficient evidence of sudden heat of passion. | Fontaine contends no sudden quarrel element proven; more likely premeditated. | Reversed for new trial on other grounds; sufficiency reviewed under dual theories but not decisive. |
| Whether Fontaine could be convicted as principal or aider and abettor | Indictment and instructions treated him as principal; evidence supports aiding and abetting. | Ambiguity in charging theory; insufficiency under one theory cannot alone sustain convictions. | Sufficiency analyzed under both theories; convictions could be sustained but remand for new trial. |
| Narration of surveillance video by officer witness | Officer’s narration helped jury understand video; admissible lay testimony. | Officer was not eyewitness; improper lay testimony and framing of evidence. | Abuse of discretion; required new trial; emphasize safeguards for surveillance evidence. |
| Juror questioning of witnesses during trial | Practice may aid jury but not essential to right to a fair trial. | Juror questioning without safeguards risks prejudice and improper influence. | Procedural error; jury questioning prohibited without formal safeguards; remand to establish guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Latalladi v. People, 51 V.I. 137 (V.I. 2009) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in VI)
- Gonzalez v. United States, 918 F.2d 1129 (3d Cir. 1990) (credibility viewed in light most favorable to government)
- Allard v. United States, 240 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1957) (sufficiency standard for appellate review of evidence)
- Forsythe, 560 F.2d 1127 (3d Cir. 1977) (indictment may be read to support aiding-and-abetting conviction)
- Boston v. Gov’t of the VI, 46 V.I. 520 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2005) (invited error doctrine; lesser included offense analysis)
- Belk, 689 S.E.2d 439 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (surveillance witness identification; potential prejudice from officer narration)