Williams v. People, 2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 54

Williams was convicted of second degree murder, first degree assault, and third degree assault for shooting Dowe in Simmonds Alley.
Faulkner and Maynard gave prior statements implicating Williams, later recanted at trial, and the People introduced those statements during trial.
Williams challenged the admissibility of Faulkner’s March 1, 2010 statement and Maynard’s March 1, 2010 statement under 14 V.I.C. § 19.
The jury found Williams guilty on all counts and on three firearm-enhancement counts; the sentences were ordered concurrent.
On appeal, Williams contends multiple issues including admissibility, multiplicity, and sufficiency of the evidence.
The Virgin Islands Supreme Court remands for sentencing to avoid multiplicity and upholds sufficiency of evidence and admissibility under § 19.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior statements	Williams argues § 19 requires cross-examination on prior statements.	People contends statements were admissible to attack credibility and prove truth of matter.	Statements properly admitted under § 19; cross-examination adequate under Confrontation Clause.
Multiplicity and double jeopardy	Williams asserts three offenses arising from a single act violate Double Jeopardy and should merge.	People maintains separate offenses and no plain error in failing to merge.	Convictions/prayers for three offenses arising from a single act constitute plain error; remand for single offense and stay others.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Faulkner and Maynard’s statements are unreliable and cannot support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Evidence, including prior statements, drive a reasonable inference that Williams shot Dowe with malice.	There was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict Williams of shooting and killing Dowe.

Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (multiplicity remains punitive even with concurrent sentences)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (U.S. Supreme Court 1996) (multiplicity and recidivist concerns; plain error guidance)
Tann v. United States, 577 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2009) (collects cases on multiplicity; plain error doctrine applied)
Cesare v. United States, 581 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 2009) (overruled Gricco-like reasoning on concurrent sentences)
Pearson, 42 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1986) (section 654(a) prohibits multiple punishment from a single act)
California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (U.S. Supreme Court 1970) (cross-examination sufficiency standard for prior inconsistent statements)
Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (Confrontation Clause requires opportunity for cross-examination)