People v. Faulkner
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 60
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Faulkner was convicted by a jury of reckless endangerment, carrying or using a dangerous weapon, and unauthorized use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence; he was acquitted of discharging a firearm.
- The trial court granted Faulkner’s post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal on the unauthorized use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence charge because the predicate offense (discharging a firearm) was found not guilty.
- The People appeal the trial court’s order setting aside the verdict and dismissing the unauthorized use charge, arguing the verdict should stand despite inconsistency between predicates and compound offense.
- The Superior Court relied on the inconsistency to grant acquittal, citing Atlantic States and related authorities as permitting dismissal of the compound offense.
- The Virgin Islands Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review post-verdict judgments of acquittal under 4 V.I.C. § 33(d)(1).
- The court must determine whether an inconsistent verdict alone warrants setting aside a verdict, reviewing de novo the legal standards and the sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an inconsistent verdict supports setting aside a verdict | Faulkner’s conviction for unauthorized use of a firearm should be reinstated despite inconsistency. | Faulkner’s acquittal on the predicate discharging a firearm logically defeats the compound offense. | No; inconsistent verdicts do not require setting aside. |
| Whether the Government may appeal a post-verdict judgment of acquittal | The People may appeal under 4 V.I.C. § 33(d)(1) from a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict. | The defendant’s rights to double jeopardy would bar such an appeal. | The Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (inconsistent verdicts do not show lack of guilt; not a windfall for government)
- Craig, 358 F. App’x 446 (4th Cir. 2009) (inconsistent verdicts should not infer innocence; no court intervention)
- Dobyns, 679 A.2d 487 (D.C. 1996) (convictions on a dependent count may be sustained despite inconsistent acquittals on predicates)
- Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (U.S. 2005) (double jeopardy concerns in trial-vs-acquittal appeals; jury verdict reinstatement permissible)