Powell v. People, 2013 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 40

Background

On March 1, 2010, after an initial fight at the Rock Bar, Powell left but then followed three women to a parking area near Mojo’s and struck Maria with a broken beer bottle, causing severe injury (loss of an eye); Robbins was also injured attempting to intervene.
A jury acquitted Powell of mayhem, first-degree assault, and third-degree assault but convicted her on three counts of carrying/using a dangerous weapon under 14 V.I.C. § 2251(a)(2)(B); the trial court later entered judgment on the lesser-included weapon offense.
The trial included graphic photographs of victims’ injuries and testimony about the crime scene and ambulance delay; Powell’s counsel stipulated to some photos and did not object to others or to impeachment with a prior third-degree assault conviction.
On appeal to this Court (Powell I), the earlier post-trial acquittal was reversed and the case was remanded for sentencing; Powell then appealed the July 20, 2012 Judgment and Commitment.
This Court affirms the convictions under § 2251(a)(2)(A) (possession/use of a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent) but remands for resentencing under § 104 because multiple counts punished possession of the same weapon in the same event.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel (photos, testimony, stipulations)	Powell: counsel’s stipulations and failures to object to photos and testimony were deficient and prejudiced her.	People: counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy and any errors were not prejudicial in light of the record.	Court: No reversible ineffective assistance — prejudice not shown.
Sufficiency of evidence for weapon offense	Powell: evidence insufficient to show unlawful intent to use the bottle or to support enhancement tied to crimes of violence.	People: record supports that Powell armed herself, sought out the women, threatened them, and used excessive force; independent count review applies.	Court: Sufficient evidence to convict under § 2251(a)(2)(A); jury could rationally find unlawful intent or excessive force.
Admission of gruesome photos & Rule 403 exclusion	Powell: photos were cumulative, inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial; should have been excluded.	People: photos were probative of injury extent, method of attack, and relevance to self-defense; trial court did not abuse discretion.	Court: No reversible error — photos probative and admissible; defendant largely stipulated and did not object at trial.
Impeachment with prior conviction (Rule 609)	Powell: court failed to conduct required balancing before admitting prior third-degree assault conviction, causing prejudice.	People: impeachment proper; even if plain error, Powell failed to show prejudice given corroborating testimony and acquittals on some charges.	Court: Trial court erred by not conducting balancing test, but error was not prejudicial; conviction stands.
Multiple punishments / Sentencing under § 104	Powell: multiple counts duplicate punishment for same weapon/event.	People: convictions may stand; enhancement under (a)(2)(B) not required where crimes of violence not proved.	Court: Remand for resentencing — multiple counts for possession of same weapon in same event violate § 104; enter single count sentence under § 2251(a)(2)(A).

Key Cases Cited

People v. Powell, 56 V.I. 630 (V.I. 2012) (appellate decision reversing post-trial acquittal and remanding for sentencing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (sufficiency review of individual counts is independent; inconsistent verdicts do not require reversal)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (sentencing enhancements that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
Browne v. People, 56 V.I. 207 (V.I. 2012) (chain-of-custody challenges affect weight, not admissibility)