Hightree v. People
2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 48
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2011Background
- Hightree was convicted in the Virgin Islands Superior Court of two counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm (V.I. Code Ann. tit. 14 § 2253(a)).
- Police found two firearms in Hightree’s home on November 24, 2009, after executing a search warrant in an unrelated case and learned his licenses had lapsed in 2006.
- Hightree admitted the licenses had expired and that he possessed operable firearms without valid licenses, and he asserted selective-prosecution defenses on appeal.
- The Superior Court sentenced him to concurrent one-year terms (suspended after six days) and concurrent fines of $5,000 (with most suspended); he timely appealed the judgment.
- On appeal, Hightree challenged the statutory authority of § 2253(a) given lapse of licenses and argued his convictions violated the Second Amendment as applied to home defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 2253(a) apply to licensees with lapsed licenses? | Hightree argues no statutory authority to charge for possession after lapse. | Hightree contends § 455(e) creates a grace period shielding lapse cases from § 2253(a). | § 2253(a) criminalizes unauthorized possession; § 455(e) grace period does not apply here. |
| Whether the grace-period exception in § 455(e) applies to Hightree | Hightree asserts grace period should preclude charges. | State bears burden to prove lapse occurred outside grace period; here it did. | Grace period did not apply because licenses lapsed in 2006 and were not renewed by 2009. |
| Whether Hightree’s Second Amendment challenge was preserveable and plain error | Second Amendment protection invalidates licensing requirement as applied to his home defense. | Supreme Court precedent does not render all licensing regimes unconstitutional; argument was not preserved. | Court declined to address as plain error; affirmed without addressing merits of the Second Amendment claim. |
| Standing to challenge § 455(e) (no standing to challenge executive charging authority) | Language restricting charges under § 455(e) is unconstitutional legislative overreach. | Hightree lacks standing to challenge § 455(e) since charges were under § 2253(a). | Court rejected standing to challenge § 455(e); affirmed on § 2253(a) grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. Supreme Court (2008)) (individual right to bear arms; limits on regulation acknowledged)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. Supreme Court (2010)) (incorporation of Second Amendment; regulation allowed)
- Nanton v. People, 52 V.I. 466 (V.I. 2009) (plain-error standard for unpreserved criminal-appeal challenges)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. Supreme Court (1993)) (plain-error standard and requirements)
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (U.S. Supreme Court (1982)) (standing and redressability principles)