Williams v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands
| Decision Date | 26 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | Super. Ct.Crim. No. F64/2004. |
| Citation | 51 V.I. 1053 |
| Parties | Kendall WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Superior Court Judge: The Honorable Ive Arlington Swan.
Leonard B. Francis, Esq., St, Thomas, U.S.V.I. for the appellant.
Dolace McLean, AAG, St, Thomas, U.S.V.I., for the appellee.
Before CURTIS V. GÓMEZ, Chief Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands; RAYMOND L. FINCH, Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands; and FRANCIS J. D'ERAMO, Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, sitting by designation.
Following a jury trial conducted in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John1 (the “Superior Court”) 1 Kendall Williams was convicted of first-degree murder, unauthorized carrying of a firearm during the commission of first-degree murder, first-degree assault, unauthorized carrying of a firearm during the commission of first-degree assault, and unauthorized possession of ammunition. Kendall Williams now appeals his conviction. For the reasons given below, the Court will affirm the conviction.
On October 24, 2002, Kendall Williams' house was burglarized. On October 27, 2002, Khoy Smith borrowed his girlfriend's car and drove to a basketball court in the area known as Tutu on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. There, Khoy Smith met his friend, Raymond Smith, Jr. (“Raymond Smith”). The two men began smoking marijuana in front of a building in a residential neighborhood known as Turnkey, Tutu High Rise. After about twenty minutes, a turquoise-green car approached. Kendall Williams was driving the vehicle and Gregory Williams 2 was the only passenger. Gregory Williams exited the passenger side of the car with a gun in hand and told Khoy Smith and Raymond Smith not to move. Khoy Smith began running away. Gregory Williams chased Khoy Smith, and subsequently shot and killed him. Gregory Williams then ran back to the car and got in. Kendall Williams and Gregory Williams drove off.
In February, 2004, the government filed a third amended information (the “Information”) against Kendall Williams in the Superior Court. The Information charged Kendall Williams with first-degree murder, unauthorized carrying of a firearm during the commission of first-degree murder, first-degree assault, unauthorized carrying of a firearm during the commission of first-degree assault, and unauthorized possession of ammunition.
The trial in this matter commenced on January 31, 2005. The government called Raymond Smith, who testified that, on October 27, 2002, he saw Gregory Williams exit the car with a gun in his hand and run after Khoy Smith. Shortly thereafter, Raymond Smith heard a gunshot. The next day, Khoy Smith was found dead in nearby bushes. The government also called Ismael Sasso (“Sasso”) as a witness. Sasso testified that he was in the vicinity of the shooting at the time it occurred. Sasso identified Williams as the driver of the car and said that he saw Gregory running toward the car with a gun in hand shortly after hearing a gunshot. Sasso also testified that he was testifying pursuant to a deal with the government. Additionally, the government called Makeda Petersen (“Petersen”), who testified that she was also in the vicinity of the shooting at the time it occurred. Petersen testified that she saw Kendall Williams arrive in a green car. Petersen further stated that she saw another man, whom she did not identify, exit the car with a gun in hand. Petersen further explained that she saw that man chase Khoy Smith, and shortly thereafter she heard a gunshot. Finally, the government called Detective Mario Stout, of the Virgin Islands Police Department. Detective Stout testified that, during his investigation of this case, several individuals had expressed fear of the defendants. Detective Stout also stated that Sasso was lying when Sasso said he had a deal with the government.
During the government's case, Kendall Williams moved for a mistrial. The court denied his request.
Kendall Williams called Kim Emmanuel (“Emmanuel”) as a defense witness at trial. Emmanuel testified that he was employed at West Indian Creations, a jewelry retail, customizing, and repair shop in St. Thomas. Emmanuel stated that, on October 27, 2007, Kendall Williams was present with him at the West Indian Creations store in downtown Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas from approximately 9:00 a.m. until just before 5:00 p.m. that evening. During direct examination, Emmanuel testified that he suspected there was an implied connection between the October 24, 2002, burglary of Kendall Williams' house and the October 27, 2002, shooting of Khoy Smith. Kendall Williams also called Chevroy Bishop (“Bishop”), who had spent time in prison with Sasso. Bishop stated that, while in prison, Sasso told him about his deal with the government to testify in consideration for dismissal of his grand larceny charges.
The jury found Kendall Williams guilty of all five counts alleged against him in the Information. He was later sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the murder conviction, fifiteen years in prison for the assault and firearms convictions, and seven years for the ammunition conviction.
Kendal Williams timely appealed his conviction, raising the following issues. First, whether the conduct of the trial judge deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial, and whether the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based such conduct. Second, whether the conduct of the prosecutor deprived him of such due process rights. Third, whether the Superior Court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence the testimony of government witnesses stating concerning fear and intimidation of testifying, and Detective Stout's testimony concerning witness fear and intimidation, or by precluding the defense attorney from directly questioning Emmanuel regarding any connection between the burglary and the shooting. Fourth, whether the Superior Court erred in preventing the defense attorney. Fifth, whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's misconduct during his opening statement or his summation.
This Court has jurisdiction over appeals of final judgments and orders of the Superior Court filed before January 29, 2007, the date on which the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands was certified as ready to assume such jurisdiction. SeeRevised Organic Act of 1954 23A, 48 U.S.C. § 1613a; Act No. 6730 § 54(d)(1) (Omnibus Justice Act of 2005).
Garcia v. Gov't of the V.I., 480 V.I. 530, 534 (D.V.I.App.Div.2006) (); see also Saludes v. Ramos, 744 F.2d 992 (3d Cir.1984). The sufficiency of the evidence supporting an appellant's conviction is a legal question subject to plenary review. See United States v. Taftsiou, 144 F .3d 287, 290 (3d Cir.1998); Castillo v. Gov't of the V.I., 48 V.I. 519, 523 (D.V.I.App.Div.2006). We also review de novo whether a prosecutor's conduct was improper. See Turbe v. Gov't of the V.I., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15635 at *8 (D.V.I.App.Div. Feb. 25, 2008) (citing United States v. Nelson Rodriguez, 319 F.3d 12, 38 (1st Cir.2003)). The trial court's ultimate decision to deny a mistrial for abuse of discretion. United States v. West Indies Transport, Inc., 127 F.3d 299, 311 (3d Cir.1997).
Reversal may be avoided if trial errors are found to be harmless. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) (2002)3; Davis v. Gov't of the V.I., 48 V.I. 860, 871–73 (D.V.I.App.Div.2007). “Under this standard, the reviewing court must satisfy itself that there is no reasonable possibility that the error, viewed in the context of all the evidence presented, contributed to the guilty verdict, undermining confidence in the trial.” Davis, 48 V.I. at 871–72.
Where trial counsel fails to object to an error, we reverse only if the asserted violation amounts to “plain error.” SeeFed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (2002)4; United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 164 (3d Cir.2005). “Where a defendant demonstrates error that is plain, and that affects substantial rights, we may correct that error where the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings was affected.” Davis, 407 F.3d at 164 (quotations and citations omitted). In order to effect substantial rights, an error must have been prejudicial, and must have “affected the outcome of the [trial] court proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
As a preliminary matter, the Court should note that the appellant's brief is ninety-six pages long, exclusive of the tables of contents and table of authorities.
Pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 (“Rule 22”), “[e]xcept by permission of the Court, principal briefs shall not exceed fifty pages ... exclusive of pages containing the table of contents and the table of authorities.” Kendall Williams failed to move for leave to file a brief in excess of the fifty page limit. The Court does not condone the submission of briefs, such as Kendall Williams' brief, exceeding the page limit imposed by Rule 22. On the other hand, the government has not objected to the length of Kendall Williams' brief. Nor has the government argued that it has been prejudiced in any way by Kendall Williams' lengthy brief. Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ponce v. People, (2020)
...decide the law, and the jury, in consequence thereof, improperly convict, a new trial must be awarded."); Williams v. Gov't of the V.I., 51 V.I. 1053, 1064 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2009) ("In order to affect a substantial right, an error must have been prejudicial, and must have 'affected the outc......
-
Greer v. People, (2021)
...reliance on a witness's testimony when that testimony is 'inherently incredible or improbable'" (quoting Gov't of the V.I. v. Williams, 51 V.I. 1053, 1086 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2009))); see generally 29A AM. JUR. Evidence § 1375 (2008) ("Testimony is deemed inherently incredible or improbable w......