Williams v. People, 55 V.I. 721

Ashley Williams was convicted of two counts of Rape in the First Degree and one count of First Degree Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Virgin Islands after a trial.
The underlying offenses arose from an incident on November 16–17, 2005, in Williams’ residence in St. Thomas, involving Thompson, a homeless man seeking drugs.
Thompson testified that Williams restrained him, forced him to undress, and used a crack pipe while Williams attempted non-consensual sex and later assaulted him with a wooden stick.
Thompson fled Williams’ home but was threatened with death if he disclosed the incident; he later reported the assault to authorities and received medical examination.
A five-count Amended Information charged multiple offenses including aggravated rape and unlawful sexual contact; the jury found guilty on Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five, but not guilty on Count One.
Williams timely appealed challenging the trial court’s failure to give a consent instruction and the denial of his Rule 29(a) motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consent instruction plain error	Williams asserts the court should have sua sponte given a consent instruction.	People rely on adequate general instructions that covered lack of consent.	No plain error; instructions adequately addressed consent via statutory language.
Rule 29(a) judgment of acquittal	Rule 29(a) should have entered judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence on some counts.	Evidence was sufficient; court implicitly denied on some counts by allowing them to go to verdict.	Court did not err; sufficient evidence supported the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Stirone v. United States, 311 F.2d 277 (3d Cir. 1962) (jury instruction error not plain when elements covered in charge)
Martin v. United States, 528 F.3d 746 (10th Cir. 2008) (consent need not be named if elements adequately covered)
Cerrato-Reyes v. United States, 176 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1999) (instruction adequate when subject matter covered in general instructions)
Flores v. United States, 454 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 2006) (language of instruction need not mirror terms used by defendant)
Carbo v. United States, 572 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2009) (sufficiency standard; deferential review for Rule 29)
Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263 (1989) (functional equivalence doctrine in elements and defenses)
Phipps v. People, 54 V.I. 543 (V.I. 2011) (plain error standard in Virgin Islands appellate review)
In re Truong, 513 F.3d 91 (3d Cir. 2008) (final judgments and appellate jurisdiction in Virgin Islands context)
Bethel v. McAllister Bros., Inc., 81 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 1996) (finality and appellate review standards)