Galloway v. People
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 87
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Galloway was tried in September 2011 on three counts stemming from a July 2, 2010 incident on St. Croix: DUI, reckless driving, and failure to stop at a red light; officers testified the light facing them was green but they believed the other driver ran a red light, and Galloway showed signs of intoxication and refused a breath test.
- The Superior Court sentenced Galloway on November 30, 2011 to one year incarcerations on the DUI count with suspension and probation, plus fines and fees; the December 6, 2011 Judgment increased the red-light fine without explanation and did not clearly state concurrent sentences for reckless driving and red-light counts.
- Galloway challenged his convictions on several grounds, including sufficiency of the red-light evidence, the legality of criminalizing a violation under 20 V.I.R.R. § 491-52(a), and the propriety of Rule 160 procedures for a violations clerk.
- Galloway argued that the jury instruction for reckless driving omitted related offenses, and that the 160 procedure improperly allowed a guilty plea to a traffic offense before a violations clerk for a potentially incarcerable offense.
- The court held the evidence sufficient to prove failure to stop at a red light, rejected challenges to the criminalization of the alleged traffic regulation, and found plain error not satisfied for Rule 160, ultimately vacating the reckless driving and red-light sentences to remand for proper sentencing under 14 V.I.C. § 104 while affirming the convictions.
- The opinion remanded for re-sentencing with corrected compliance with section 104 and clarified ambiguities in sentencing for the two vacated counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for red-light violation | Galloway argues no eyewitness red-light red lit evidence. | People argue circumstantial evidence can prove the offense. | Sufficiency established; circumstantial evidence supports verdict. |
| Validity of 20 V.I.R.R. § 491-52(a) as a crime | Regulation not criminalized by statute; cannot be crime. | Regulation tied to criminal penalty under § 544; crime authorized. | Criminality valid under VI Code; 544 governs penalties for violations. |
| Rule 160 procedure and admissibility of guilty plea for red-light offense | Rule 160 allowed clerk to accept guilty pleas for traffic offenses. | Plain error not shown; no evidence Galloway invoked Rule 160. | No plain error; Rule 160 not remedy for this conviction in record. |
| Sufficiency and instructions for reckless driving | Reckless driving depends on willful/wanton disregard; DUI/red-light evidence insufficient. | VI statute does not require imminent danger; DUI/red-light can suffice. | Reckless driving affirmed; trial instructions adequate. |
| Sentence and 104 violation; multi-count sentencing | Sentence should be unified per 14 V.I.C. § 104. | Some counts indivisible; separate punishment permissible. | Vacate reckless driving and red-light sentences; remand for compliant sentencing under §104; affirm convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Turner, 954 A.2d 308 (Del. 2008) (willful/wanton disregard element considerations for running red lights)
- State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 21 N.W.2d 480 (1946) (reckless driving interpretations and willful disregard)
- McGrew v. State, 469 So.2d 95 (Miss. 1985) (driving under influence and recklessness standards)
- Foster v. Redding, 97 Colo. 4, 45 P.2d 940 (1935) (reckless disregard language interpretations)
- Troxler v. Cent. Motor Lines, 240 N.C. 420, 82 S.E.2d 342 (1954) (logic of implied light signals and liability)
- United States v. Carr, 25 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1996) (standards for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Melia v. Ford Motor Co., 534 F.2d 795 (8th Cir. 1976) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency in traffic cases)
- Ramirez v. People, 56 V.I. 409 (2012) (surplusage in indictments not fatal where essential elements proven)