59 V.I. 590
V.I.2013Background
- On April 1, 2009, Sonson and Forbes were in a Honda Civic that contained a sawed-off shotgun with a live round in the chamber; both men had no firearm licenses.
- Forbes retrieved the shotgun from the back seat at a confrontation; Sonson shouted to Forbes "No, no, no, no, not yet, not yet!" and then both left in the vehicle.
- Police stopped the vehicle, detained Forbes, and later found the shotgun and ammunition within arm's reach of Sonson (passenger), supporting constructive possession.
- Sonson was charged with (1) aiding and abetting unauthorized possession of a firearm (14 V.I.C. §2253) and (2) aiding and abetting failure to report ammunition purchased outside or brought into the Virgin Islands (23 V.I.C. §470). A jury convicted on both counts.
- Sonson appealed, arguing: (a) insufficient evidence that he “purchased or obtained” the ammunition to trigger §470, and (b) §2253 is unconstitutional as applied to constructive possessors under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands affirmed both convictions and declined to reach the constitutional challenge on plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient under 23 V.I.C. §470 that Sonson "purchased or otherwise obtained" ammunition | The People: constructive possession (ammo in vehicle within Sonson's reach, his statements, joint control) suffices as "obtained" and failure to report | Sonson: statute requires proof of purchase/receipt or affirmative obtaining; mere constructive possession is insufficient; jury instruction adding "possessed" was erroneous | Held: "obtained" includes possession; constructive possession (within arm's reach, knowledge, ability to control) satisfied §470; conviction affirmed |
| Whether Sonson could be guilty of aiding/abetting failure to report when another (Forbes) also failed to report | The People: §470 offense is ongoing; multiple joint possessors may each have independent reporting duties; aiding/abetting applies | Sonson: crime was already complete by Forbes; cannot aid/abet a completed act; only the owner or actual recipient could report | Held: §470 creates a continuing duty to report; multiple persons with constructive possession can each be liable; aiding/abetting conviction proper |
| Whether inclusion of "possessed" in jury instruction violated unanimity or statutory meaning | The People: "obtained" and "possessed" are functionally equivalent under common usage and legislative intent; unanimity not impaired | Sonson: "obtained" ≠ "possessed"; mixing terms could confuse jurors and undermine unanimity | Held: No unanimity problem — court treated "obtained" as encompassing possession; instruction proper |
| Whether 14 V.I.C. §2253 is unconstitutional as applied to constructive possessors under the Second Amendment | Sonson: constructive possessors cannot be "authorized by law" (e.g., register), so §2253 unconstitutionally criminalizes possession of arms protected by Second Amendment | Sonson: (alternative) the statute cannot constitutionally apply to someone who lacks an opportunity to register | Held: Court declines to reach the Second Amendment claim on plain-error review (issue not raised at trial); prior local precedent supports upholding licensing/regulatory regimes; conviction under §2253 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess a firearm for self-defense but is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Heller Second Amendment principles applicable to states)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause and reasonable inference that all car occupants share knowledge and control of contraband)
- United States v. McKie, 112 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 1997) (interpreting 23 V.I.C. §470 to require reporting upon possession; legislative history shows possession was intended)
- United States v. Kellogg, 510 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts in criminal cases)