Lewis v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, D.C. Crim. App. No. 1997–035.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | D.C. Crim. App. No. 1997–035. |
| Citation | 42 V.I. 175 |
| Parties | Rashon LEWIS, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Defendant was convicted in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands of aggravated rape, first degree robbery, and possession of a dangerous weapon during a violent crime,and he appealed. The District Court held that: (1) court did not deprive defendant of due process by denying his motion for appointment of an investigator, and (2) surprise “show-up” confrontation used by the police was not so inherently unfair or impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
Affirmed.
George H. Hodge, Jr., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for appellant.
Maureen Phelan Cormier, Assistant Attorney General, St. Thomas, U.S. V.I., for appellee.
BEFORE: RAYMOND L. FINCH, Chief Judge, District Court of the Virgin Islands; THOMAS K. MOORE, Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands; and MARIA M. CABRET, Presiding Judge, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, Sitting by Designation.
Appellant Rashon Lewis [“Lewis”] contends that this tribunal must reverse or vacate his jury convictions for aggravated rape, V.I.Code Ann. tit. 14, §§ 1700–01, first degree robbery, id. § 1862(2), and possession of a dangerous weapon during a violent crime, id. § 2251(a)(2). Exercising jurisdiction under 4 V.I.C. § 33, we disagree and affirm.
The testimony and evidence presented by the government at trial demonstrated that on Saturday, June 3, 1995, Odette Samuel [“Samuel”], a resident of Tortola, British Virgin Islands, completed the Scholastic Aptitude Test at Charlotte Amalie High School in St. Thomas. While Samuel waited in front of the school for a friend to pick her up, she noticed a young black man with braided hair standing in the school's guard booth. According to Samuel, this young man wore a large, green plaid shirt with long sleeves, black pants cut below the knee, and a gold chain. At one point, Samuel saw the young woman who sat next to her during the test speak to this youth and then leave the guard booth. The young man later left the school grounds while Samuel continued to wait for her friend, alone. ( See Appellant's Br. at 4; Appellee's Br. at 7.)
Samuel then walked back into the empty school building and found the ladies' restroom. As Samuel was leaving the restroom, an individual that she recognized as the young man from the guard booth pushed her against the restroom wall, told her not to scream, and ordered her to remove her underwear. The young man held a gun. After Samuel refused, the assailant cocked the gun, placed it against her head, and again ordered her to remove her underwear. Samuel complied. The young man placed the gun on the floor and raped her. He then asked her whether she had any money, and took about $400 from her. ( See J.A. at 11–14.)
When the young man left, Samuel washed herself thoroughly in the restroom sink, wishing “to act like it never did happen.” ( See id. at 14–15.) She called a friend who lived nearby, Boyd Todman [“Todman”], and asked him to transport her to the ferry. After Todman arrived at the school, Samuel told him that she wanted to return to Tortola and never set foot on St. Thomas again. Todman knew Samuel was upset, and refused to take her to the ferry until she explained what was bothering her. Samuel began to cry, and told him that she had been raped. ( See id. at 15–18, 36–39, 41.)
Todman quickly looked around the school area for the assailant, and then contacted the police. Some time passed before Samuel reluctantly agreed to accompany the police to the hospital. ( See id. at 42–43.) There, Dr. Leighmin Lu examined Samuel and took fluid and hair samples from her genital area. Her examination revealed no signs of forcible sex, but indicated that Samuel had engaged in intercourse during the day. ( See id. at 102–04.) Experts on DNA analysis and hair analysis later conceded at trial that little forensic evidence was available to support Samuel's allegation.1
Later that day, the police took Samuel back to the school to review picture albums of Charlotte Amalie High School students. Although they did not have time to review all of the students' photographs, Samuel identified the young woman who had sat next to her during the test. That woman, Leslie Petersen, told the police that the man with the braided hair and green shirt that she had spoken to in the guard booth was Rashon Lewis. ( See Appellant's Br. at 6.)
The next morning, the police picked up Samuel's mother at the ferry station in Red Hook and took Samuel and her mother to the police station in Tutu Park. They planned to take Samuel and her mother back to Charlotte Amalie High School and continue looking at students' pictures. ( See J.A. at 53.) Meanwhile, the police contacted Lewis' mother and asked her for a photograph to use in a photo array of suspects. Lewis' mother informed the police that she did not have a suitable picture, but would bring her son to the Charlotte Amalie police station that morning. ( See id. at 52.)
Lewis and his mother arrived at the station later in the morning, and spent several hours speaking to the police and waiting for other officers to arrive. Ultimately, they decided that they would not cooperate in the police investigation. Around two o'clock in the afternoon, the police told Lewis and his mother that they could leave the station. By this time, the police had arranged for Samuel to sit in a police car by the station so she could view Lewis as he departed. At that time, however, the police did not tell Samuel that they had identified the young man in the guard booth as Rashon Lewis, or that he would soon exit the station.2
Lewis then left the station. According to the testimony of Lewis' mother, an officer followed Lewis outside the station, briskly entered the car where Samuel and her mother sat, quickly spoke to someone inside, and lowered a window. ( See id. at 128–29.) Samuel saw Lewis, pointed at him, and sobbed, “[t]hat's the man, he's over there.” ( See id. at 49.) The police then arrested the appellant.
Before trial, Lewis moved to suppress Samuel's out-of-court identification and asked the trial court to appoint a private investigator “to assist him and his attorney in the investigation and preparation of the defense of this case.” ( See id. at 120–52, 6 (Def.'s Request for Authorization to Retain Investigator, July 18, 1995).) The trial court denied these requests. At trial, Samuel failed to recall that she initially described Lewis' face as pointed or narrow. ( See J.A. at 24–26.) The trial concluded and the trial judge denied Lewis' renewed motion for acquittal. Thereafter, the jury found Lewis guilty of aggravated rape, first degree robbery, and possession of a dangerous weapon during a crime of violence. Lewis received a sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment on the first count, fifteen years on the second, and two years on the third, the sentences to run concurrently. ( See id. at 3–5 (J., Jan. 28, 1997).) He filed a timely appeal.
Lewis asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motions for acquittal, appointment of a private investigator, or suppression of the “show-up” pre-trial identification. Our plenary review of the trial judge's decisions of law, see Government of the Virgin Islands v. Christopher, 38 V.I. 193, 196, 990 F.Supp. 391, 393 (D.V.I.App.Div.1997), reveals no reason to disturb the judgments of conviction.
First, the testimony adduced by the government at trial convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Lewis displayed and threatened to use a handgun against Samuel in order to have sexual intercourse with her and to permanently deprive her of personal property. See supra. Like the trial judge, we view this testimony in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences in the prosecution's favor when considering a motion for acquittal. See Government of the Virgin Islands v. Grant, 21 V.I. 20, 24 (D.V.I.App.Div.1984). We too find that this testimony was sufficient to convict Lewis of aggravated rape, robbery in the first degree, and possession of a dangerous weapon. Cf.14 V.I.C. §§ 1700–01, 1862(2), 2251(a)(2) (). Indeed, Samuel's testimony alone reasonably could have convinced a jury to convict the appellant on those charges. See Government of the Virgin Islands v. Peets, Crim. No. 82–11, slip. op. (D.V.I.Div. St. Thomas & St. John filed Oct. 29, 1982) (“uncorroborated testimony of the victim ... is sufficient evidence for conviction”).3 The trial court correctly denied Lewis' motions for acquittal.
Second, Lewis casually asked the trial court to appoint a private investigator, Mr. Gaston Tuckett, “to assist him and his attorney in the investigation and preparation of the defense of this case.” ( See J.A. at 6 (Def.'s Request for Authorization to Retain Investigator, July 18, 1995).) Although numerous courts have held that trial judges may appoint investigators to assist indigent defendants in securing due process or the effective assistance of counsel,4 defendants must explain precisely why such assistance is necessary. See, e.g., Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 323 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) (); United States v. Gonzales, 150 F.3d 1246, 1251 n. 4 (10th Cir.1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humienny v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands
...§ 292.Garzon's testimony alone reasonably could have convinced the finder of fact to convict Humienny. See Lewis v. Virgin Islands, 42 V.I. 175, 77 F.Supp.2d 681, 684 (D.V.I.1999) (noting that the “uncorroborated testimony of a victim ... is sufficient evidence for conviction”) (quoting Gov......