People v. Powell
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 36
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- People appeal after Powell was acquitted on three charges following a jury verdict of guilty on corresponding counts; the conviction related to a physical attack with a broken bottle injuring two women; the acquittals were entered due to perceived inconsistency with the jury’s guilty verdicts on other counts.
- Trial court’s acquittals on Counts I, III, V were deemed mandatory due to supposed inconsistency with Counts II, IV, VI by the judge prior to sentencing.
- Appellate review under 4 V.I.C. § 33(d)(1) allows reversal/remand after acquittal following a guilty verdict; the court may reverse, not barred by Double Jeopardy.
- The court delegated to consider summary reversal under V.I.S.Ct. I.O.P. 9.4, noting Powell and Dunn establish that inconsistent verdicts do not mandate acquittals for remaining offenses.
- The court ultimately found a reversible error in the acquittal and reversed the judgment, remanding for further proceedings while noting the decision does not resolve all grounds for Powell’s convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an acquittal based on inconsistency mandates reversal | Powell | Powell | Reversed; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether summary reversal is warranted | People | Powell | Summary reversal warranted; no substantial question |
| Scope of remand and remaining grounds for conviction | Powell could challenge Counts II, IV, VI on other grounds | Powell | Remand allowed; other grounds not addressed by this order |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (jury verdicts inconsistent; not a basis to acquit remaining offenses)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932) (no requirement that a verdict be consistent)
- Mussare v. United States, 405 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2005) (no mandate to acquit remaining offenses due to inconsistency)
- United States v. Vastola, 989 F.2d 1318 (3d Cir. 1993) (Powell principle applied; inconsistency not dispositive)
- Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (U.S. 2005) (Double Jeopardy does not bar a prosecution appeal to reinstate guilty verdict)