LeBlanc v. People, 56 V.I. 536

LeBlanc was convicted in the Virgin Islands Superior Court of child abuse under 14 V.I.C. § 505 and unlawful sexual contact in the second degree under 14 V.I.C. § 1709 after an incident in a car involving a minor passenger, K.A.
The charging phrase at issue under § 505 is the first of three phrases governing what constitutes a crime of child abuse, specifically “abuses a child”/“sexual conduct” with a child in the charged context.
The evidence included LeBlanc touching K.A.’s genital area through clothing; the defense challenged the sufficiency and clarity of the statutory term “sexual conduct” for § 505.
Hawley, a car dealership employee, testified about Al-Arefi’s statement alleging molestation and about LeBlanc’s reaction; the defense objected to hearsay.
The trial court admitted Hawley’s testimony over hearsay objections; on appeal, the court held some statements were not hearsay and that the admissions by LeBlanc were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A).
The Virgin Islands Supreme Court vacated the child abuse conviction on vagueness grounds but affirmed the conviction for unlawful sexual contact, and left intact the related fines and procedural posture.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 505 as applied vague under due process?	LeBlanc argues the charging phrase lacks standards.	The People contend the statute provides definite boundaries.	Yes; § 505 as applied is unconstitutionally vague.
Are Hawley’s statements by Al-Arefi and LeBlanc’s response hearsay?	Hawley’s testimony about Al-Arefi’s statement and LeBlanc’s reply are hearsay.	Statements were not offered for truth; they contextualize reactions.	No; not hearsay under the circumstances presented.
Did LeBlanc have standing to challenge the vagueness of § 505?	LeBlanc claims the statute’s vagueness harmed him.	Standing requires actual or threatened injury tied to the challenged action.	Yes, LeBlanc had standing to challenge the vagueness as applied.

Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (due process requires fair notice and prevents arbitrary enforcement)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (vagueness doctrine; fair notice and discriminatory enforcement)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (arbitrary enforcement concerns in vagueness analysis)
United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) (standing/constitutional vagueness analysis in context of case)