Moolenaar v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands
| Citation | 35 V.I. 177 |
| Decision Date | 25 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | T.C.Crim. No. F57/1995.,D.C.Crim.App. No. 1995/112. |
| Parties | Roy MOOLENAAR, 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 burglary in second degree, and he appealed. A three-judge panel of the District Court held that information charging defendant with breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit crime of “theft” therein was insufficient under Sixth Amendment in that there was no crime of “theft” defined in Virgin Islands Code.
Reversed and remanded.
Alan D. Smith, Kathleen MacKay, Hodge & Francois, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for Appellant.
Maureen Phelan Cormier, Assistant Attorney General, Virgin Islands Department of Justice, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., for Appellee.
Before THOMAS K. MOORE, Chief Judge, District Court of the Virgin Islands; RAYMOND L. FINCH, Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands; and EDGAR D. ROSS, Territorial Court Judge, Division of St. Croix, Sitting by Designation.
Appellant, Roy Moolenaar [“Moolenaar” or “appellant”], appeals his conviction of burglary in the second degree. Appellant's conviction is reversed and remanded.
Shortly after midnight on February 18, 1994, police responded to a report of a breaking and entering at No. 27 Ross–Taarneberg, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. At the time of the breaking and entering, the residence was occupied by Ms. Altagracia Hoheb [“Ms. Hoheb”], her three daughters and two grandchildren. Ms. Hoheb was awakened by one of her daughters who had heard a noise outside the house. When Ms. Hoheb got up to investigate, she heard a noise at the back of the house. She returned to her bedroom and called the police. The police arrived almost immediately and apprehended Moolenaar, whose clothing matched the description given by Ms. Hoheb. At the time of arrest, Ms. Hoheb's house keys were found in the pocket of appellant's jacket. Aside from the keys, nothing else was discovered missing by Ms. Hoheb and her family.
Appellant claimed that he entered Ms. Hoheb's home seeking refuge from two gang members who had accosted him and a friend, who fled in a different direction. Moolenaar contended that when he ran into the Hoheb house, he had no intent to commit a crime in the house, but was only trying to hide from the two men.
A one count information was filed on March 2, 1994 charging Roy Moolenaar with the crime of burglary in the second degree in violation of V.I.Code Ann. tit. 14, § 443. On March 3, 1994, appellant pled not guilty, and the matter proceeded to trial on January 17, 1995. The next day the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Before sentencing, the Government filed an information of previous conviction seeking to have Moolenaar sentenced as a habitual offender under 14 V.I.C. § 61. Appellant was sentenced to fifteen (15) years in jail, with the first ten (10) years to be served without benefit of parole or other form of release.1 Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal on May 8, 1995.
This Court has appellate jurisdiction under 4 V.I.C. § 33. The standard of review to be applied depends upon whether the issues being appealed were preserved at trial. If no objection was made at the trial level, then the matter is reviewed for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).2 Since Moolenaar attempts to raise here issues he did not first bring to the trial court's attention, it appears that a plain error analysis is in order. Reversal is used sparingly to correct what would otherwise result in manifest injustice. Cheatham v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 30 V.I. 296, 300 (D.V.I.App.1994).
Rule 52(b) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” While the plain error doctrine “tempers the blow of a rigid application of the contemporaneous objection requirement,” it only allows us to correct “ ‘particularly egregious errors ... [that] seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). We are cautioned to use the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule “sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 & n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592 & n. 14, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982). Thus, “[a]ny unwarranted extension of this exacting definition of plain error would skew the Rule's ‘careful balancing of our need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around against our insistence that obvious injustice be promptly redressed.’ ” Young, 470 U.S. at 15, 105 S.Ct. at 1046.
We find the first issue argued by appellant to be pivotal, namely, that the information failed to properly apprise him of the charges against him.3 The provision of the Constitution implicated by the appellant's argument is that of the Sixth Amendment providing that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation [against him].” 4 Appellant avers that the language in the information did not sufficiently inform him of the charges he was required to defend against. The Government counters that: (1) the allegation that appellant intended to commit the ‘crime of theft’ was sufficient to inform him that he was charged with intending to unlawfully take the property belonging to another person, and so fairly informed appellant of the charges against him, and (2) even if the information was technically flawed, Moolenaar has not shown the prejudice or miscarriage of justice necessary to justify reversal.
Burglary is pertinently defined in 14 V.I.C. § 443 as:
Whoever, with intent to commit some offense therein breaks and enters the dwelling house, building, or structure of another in which there is a human being, under circumstances not amounting to burglary in the first degree, is guilty of burglary in the second degree....
The information, on the other hand, contains the following charging language:
On or about February 18, 1994, in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Roy Moolenaar, no known address, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, did with the intent to commit the crime of theft therein, break and enter a dwelling house, to wit Ross–Taarneberg # 27, in which there was present a human being, to wit Altagracia Hoheb, in violation of 14 V.I.C. 443.
Information at 1 (emphasis added).
When the sufficiency of an information is challenged, a court must make two findings:
[F]irst, whether the ... information ‘contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet,’ and, secondly, ‘in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction.’
Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763–64, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1046–47, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962). The one count information in this case fails under both of these tests.
The information charges Moolenaar with breaking and entering a dwelling house with “the intent to commit the crime of theft therein....” Information at 1 (emphasis added). Since there simply is no such crime of ‘theft’ defined in the Virgin Islands Code,5 the information fails to satisfy the inquiry of Russell. It does not state the crime of burglary because it does not recite an essential element of that crime, namely, the offense appellant intended to commit once he got inside.6 It goes without saying that a charge which fails to state a crime is insufficient to apprise a defendant of what he must be prepared to meet. We reject the Government's argument that since the two words ‘theft’ and ‘larceny’ are synonymous,7 and larceny is a crime defined in 14 V.I.C. § 1081, the use of the word ‘theft’ in the information was sufficient to apprise appellant of the charges against him. Whether the word ‘theft’ might have alerted Moolenaar of the gist of what he was facing is irrelevant because the single count information did not charge a crime. ‘Theft’ may be included in the concept of larceny, but ‘theft’ is not a separate crime in and of itself.8
The information also fails Russell's second requirement. Although the charges clearly delineate the time and place of the alleged burglary and include the necessary recitation of a person being in the dwelling at the time of the breaking and entering, it does not tell a person what crime he is alleged to have intended to commit once he got inside. Accordingly, this description of the charges against him will not serve to protect Moolenaar “from again being put in jeopardy for the same offense.” Russell, 369 U.S. at 764, 82 S.Ct. at 1047.
In conclusion, we recognize that the plain error doctrine is sparingly applied to correct what would otherwise be a miscarriage of justice. Such is the case before us. The failure of an information to charge a defendant with a crime is surely an error which “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 9 An order remanding this case is attached.
1. Sentence was imposed on April 26, 1995 and the Judgment was signed on May 4, 1995. The court also assessed Twenty–Five Dollars ($25.00) in court costs.
2. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial