Prince v. People, 2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 69

Prince stabbed his half-brother during an altercation at Ingram’s home; two DV assault charges and two counts of using a dangerous weapon were charged under VI code; trial court gave deadly/dangerous weapon definition and self-defense instruction; defense moved for acquittal arguing failure to disprove self-defense; Prince was convicted on all four counts and sentenced, with counts 3 and 4 merged into 1 and 2; appellate review followed after final judgment in 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deadly weapon instruction adequacy	Prince contends the instruction equated dangerous with deadly weapon and lacked a clear list.	The instruction followed common-law standard and properly defined deadly weapon.	Instruction proper; no plain error from lack of exhaustive list.
Interchangeability of terms deadly/dangerous	Equating terms misled jury and affected verdict.	Terminology interchange is common and harmless in context.	No reversible error; terms sufficiently synonymous in charge as a whole.
Necessity of additional self-defense defenses	Court should have instructed on sections 41, 44, and 293 defenses.	Self-defense instruction under §43 encompassed relevant defenses; others not warranted by record.	Self-defense instruction sufficient; no error in omitting other defenses.

Phipps v. Gov’t of the V.I., 241 F. Supp. 2d 507 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2003) (defines deadly weapon with circumstances of use; supports no need for exhaustive list)
Gov’t of the V.I. v. Robinson, 29 F.3d 878 (3d Cir. 1994) (deadly weapon analysis relies on use and intent; common-law standard)
Gov’t of the V.I. v. Bedford, 671 F.2d 758 (3d Cir. 1982) (interchangeable use of weapon terms not reversible error when charges align)
Fleming v. People, 775 F. Supp. 2d 765 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2011) (courts consider overall charge; not every ambiguity requires reversal)
Elizee v. People, 54 V.I. 466 (V.I. 2010) (preserves standard for evaluating unpreserved charging errors)