Supreme Court of the United States Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the United States Virgin Islands

 
Know Your Court
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Justices
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Office of the Clerk
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Administrative Services
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Professional Regulation
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Court Rules
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Promulgation Orders
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Opinions
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the Virgin IslandsPublished Opinions
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the Virgin IslandsUnpublished Opinions
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Electronic Docket
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Electronic Filing
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Media Services
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court News
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Fee Schedule
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
FAQ
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Forms Download
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Reference Links
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Site Map
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
ADA
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Login to E-Filing
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Search Court Opinions
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
View Oral Arguement Videos
Opinions > Published Opinions
2017 Published Opinions   2016 Published Opinions   2015 Published Opinions   2014 Published Opinions   2013 Published Opinions   2012 Published Opinions   2011 Published Opinions   2010 Published Opinions   2009 Published Opinions   2008 Published Opinions   2007 Published Opinions   
2009 Published Opinions
You can search opinions by title, case number or any text contained within the opinion

December 23, 2009
S.CT.Crim. No. 2007-033 and 034
People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff) vs. Nicole Siobhon Nanton (Appellant/Defendant) People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff) vs. Virgil Leon Nanton (Appellant/Defendant)
      Because of an omission of an essential element of the crime in the final jury instructions, two Justices will reverse Appellants' convictions on Counts Two of the Third Amended Information, charging aiding and abetting in "Carrying or Using Dangerous Weapons," pursuant to title 14, sections 2251(a)(2) and 11(a) of the Virgin Islands Code, whereas the third Justice will affirm the convictions on the same count. On the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence on Count Three of the Third amended Information, charging Aiding and Abetting in "Assault in the Third Degree," pursuant to title 14, sections 297(2) and 11(a) of the Virgin Islands Code, two Justices will affirm Virgil's conviction on Count Three, whereas the third Justice will reverse the conviction on the same count.
      Download Opinion   (191 kb)

December 14, 2009
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2009-096
H & H Avionics, Inc., (Appellant/Defendant,) vs. Virgin Islands Port Authority (Appellee/Plaintiff.)
      The Supreme Court holds that, with the exception of civil matters in which the parties and the Presiding Judge have consented to a magistrate conducting all proceedings, orders entered by magistrates that have not been appealed to and reviewed by a Superior Court judge do not constitute final orders that a litigant may directly appeal to the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Court declines to convert the appellant's attempted appeal of a magistrate's decision as a petition for writ of mandamus because, although the Superior Court has not promulgated rules expressly explaining how a litigant may seek review of a magistrate's order with a Superior Court judge, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Local Rules of Civil Procedure 72.2 and 72.3-applicable to the Superior Court through Superior Court Rule 7-provide the procedure through which a litigant may object to a magistrate's decision.
      Download Published Opinion  (29 kb)

December 14, 2009
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2009-096
H & H Avionics, Inc., (Appellant/Defendant,) vs. Virgin Islands Port Authority (Appellee/Plaintiff.)
      The Supreme Court holds that, with the exception of civil matters in which the parties and the Presiding Judge have consented to a magistrate conducting all proceedings, orders entered by magistrates that have not been appealed to and reviewed by a Superior Court judge do not constitute final orders that a litigant may directly appeal to the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Court declines to convert the appellant's attempted appeal of a magistrate's decision as a petition for writ of mandamus because, although the Superior Court has not promulgated rules expressly explaining how a litigant may seek review of a magistrate's order with a Superior Court judge, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Local Rules of Civil Procedure 72.2 and 72.3-applicable to the Superior Court through Superior Court Rule 7-provide the procedure through which a litigant may object to a magistrate's decision.
      Download Opinion   (29 kb)

December 11, 2009
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-084
Ophelia Williams-Jackson, (Appellant/Petitioner,) vs. Public Employees Relations Board, (Appellee/Respondent.)
      The Public Employees Relations Board erred in ruling that the appellant, a Department of Education employee, was not a regular employee, because the Board failed to consider whether the appellant was properly appointed to her position under the rules specifically prescribed for the appointment of Department of Education professional employees.
      Download Opinion  (128 kb)

December 10, 2009
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-027
Richard A. Jensen, (Appellant/Plaintiff) vs. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (Appellee/Defendant.)
      The Court holds that a cause of action for retaliatory discharge sounds in tort rather than contract, and is therefore subject to a two-year statute of limitations. The Court further finds that Superior Court erred in failing to apply 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) to toll the two-year statute of limitations for 30 days after the District Court of the Virgin Islands declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the appellant's territorial law claims. Finally, the Court vacated the Superior Court's dismissal order so that it may, on remand, apply the proper test for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for the period of time not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).
      Download Opinion   (39 kb)

November 23, 2009
S.Ct. Civ. No. 2008-062
Joan Sealey-Christian (Appellant/Plaintiff) vs. Sunny Isle Shopping Center, Inc., and Kiddie Time, Inc. D/B/A Little Shoes TM, (Appellees/Defendants)
      Appellant, Joan Sealey-Christian, appealed from the Superior Court's Order granting Appellee, Sunny Isle Shopping Center, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands held that it was improper for the Superior Court to grant Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment where there were numerous issues of material fact outstanding.
      Download Opinion   (85 kb)

November 19, 2009
S.CT.Crim. No. 2007-093
Laurie Lynn Francis, (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands(Plaintiff/Appellee)
      A majority of the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment and Commitment, which sentenced Appellant to three years of incarceration. Specifically, the majority concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Appellant guilty of conspiracy and multiple counts of aiding and abetting embezzlement. Additionally, the majority held that the trial court's jury instructions—as to several counts of the Information—did not rise to the level of plain error, and were, thus, not grounds for reversal.
      Download Opinion   (111 kb)

October 6, 2009
S.CT.Crim. No. 2008-034
Gregory R. Gilbert, (Appellant/Defendant) v People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff.)
      Appellant Gregory R. Gilbert (hereafter “Gilbert”) requests that this Court overturn his conviction for aggravated rape in the second degree pursuant to title 14, section 1700a(a) of the Virgin Island Code and deem him acquitted on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the essential elements of the crime. For the following reasons, we overturn Gilbert’s conviction
      Download Opinion   (119 kb)

September 22, 2009
S.CT.Civ. No. 2009-001
In Re: Peter Najawixz, Amos W. Carty, Jr., and Rodney E. Miller, Sr.
      Appellant Rodney E. Miller, Sr. ("Miller") appealed from three orders of the Superior Court: (1) an order granting the People's request for an ex parte temporary restraining order ("TRO") pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 606(h) of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO"), (2) an order adjudging Miller in civil contempt of court for violating the TRO, and (3) an order granting a preliminary injunction pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 606(f) of CICO. Miller's attorneys, Appellants Charles J. Grant, Esq. and William J. Glore, Esq., also appealed from the civil contempt order. With respect to the attorneys' appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction because, although the trial court's order threatened the attorneys with contempt, the court did not actually adjudge them in contempt of court. As to Miller's appeal from the TRO, the Court held that CICO's criminal forfeiture provisions are in personam in nature, thereby authorizing a Superior Court judge to issue pre-trial orders which directly order a defendant, over whom the court has personal jurisdiction, to do or refrain from doing something with respect to property located outside of the territory. Because the Supreme Court determined that the trial court had obtained personal jurisdiction over Miller, the Court affirmed the validity of the TRO. However, the Court reversed the order holding Miller in civil contempt because the TRO was ambiguous as to whether it restrained the particular bank account from which Miller had transferred funds to various individuals. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the preliminary injunction, holding that, although CICO prohibits pre-trial restraint of substitute assets, the injunction at issue did not improperly restrain Miller's substitute assets.
      Download Opinion   (122 kb)

September 15, 2009
S.CT.Crim. No.: 2007-126
Denzil Ivan Stephens (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      The evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for attempted murder and possession an unlicensed firearm, and the Superior Court did not employ an incorrect standard in denying the defendant's motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence. However, because the Government failed to establish that the defendant was not authorized to possess ammunition, his conviction on that count is reversed.
      Download Opinion   (69 kb)

August 19, 2009
S.CT.Crim. No.: 2007-113
Leslie Nibbs, (Appellant/Defendant), v People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      The Superior Court abused its discretion in rejecting the defendant's insanity defense where the defendant substantially complied with the notice requirements of Rule 12.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Government had actual notice of the defense approximately five weeks before trial. Because the defendant presented evidence establishing that he committed the charged criminal acts in consequence of his mental illness, and the Government failed to meet its burden of rebutting that evidence, the Court reversed the defendant's conviction.
      Download Opinion   (58 kb)

July 28, 2009
S. Ct. Crim. No. 2008-033
Maxine Bowry, (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      Appellant Maxine Bowry (hereafter “Bowry”) argues that this Court should reverse her convictions for four counts of obtaining money under false pretenses pursuant to title 14, section 834(2) of the Virgin Islands Code because the trial court purportedly 1) erred in denying her motion for acquittal due to the failure of the Appellee, the People of the Virgin Islands (hereafter “People”), to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had a specific intent to defraud; 2) made numerous evidentiary errors during trial; and 3) should have granted her motion for acquittal or new trial when it discovered that the People failed to provide Bowry with a copy of an accounting report prior to her trial. For the following reasons, we shall affirm Bowry’s convictions.
      Download Opinion   (45 kb)

July 1, 2009
S.CT. Crim. No.: 2008-091
People of the Virgin Islands (Appellant/Plaintiff), v Tydel John (Appellee/Defendant)
      The appellee, Tydel John (“John”), was a sixth grade teacher at a Virgin Islands elementary school. After several of John’s female students alerted school officials that John had inappropriately touched them, the officials notified police about the reports. Virgin Islands Police Officer Naomi Joseph (“Officer Joseph”) investigated the allegations. As a result of the investigation, the People of the Virgin Islands charged John with eight counts of first degree unlawful sexual contact,1 three counts of first degree aggravated rape,2 seven counts of child abuse,3 and two counts of child neglect.4 In addition, Officer Joseph applied for a warrant to search John’s home for evidence purportedly related to the alleged offenses. The search yielded, among other items, ten notebooks in which John allegedly chronicled his exploitation of young girls. John moved to suppress evidence of the ten notebooks seized during the search, arguing that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The trial court granted John’s motion, and the People filed this appeal. For the reasons which follow, we will affirm the trial court’s order suppressing the notebooks seized under the warrant.
      Download Opinion  (52 kb)

July 1, 2009
S.CT.Civ. No.: 2007-099
Peppertree Terrace (Appellant/Plaintiff) v. Cheryl Williams (Appellee/Defendant
      Cheryl Williams owns a mobile home located in the Peppertree Terrace mobile home community on St. Croix. Peppertree Terrace sued Williams in the Small Claims Division of the Superior Court alleging that she owed several thousand dollars in past due rent for occupying the lot in the community. After a bench trial, the trial court found that Peppertree Terrace’s claim lacked merit and dismissed the claim. Peppertree Terrace filed this appeal asserting that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim because the evidence presented at trial showed that Williams failed to pay past due rent. We agree with Peppertree Terrace that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim and accordingly reverse the trial court’s dismissal.
      Download Opinion  (86 kb)

June 25, 2009
St. Crim. No. 2007-110
In The Interest of S.T., A Minor (Appellant/Defendant) v. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      Appellant, a minor, challenges the September 14, 2007 order of the Superior Court, which transferred him from the Family Division to the Criminal Division of the Superior Court for trial as an adult. For the reasons below, this Court will affirm the transfer order.
      Download Opinion   (88 kb)

June 23, 2009
S.CT.Crim. No.: 2007-071
Samuel J. Mulley (Appellant/Defendant,) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff.)
      Appellant Samuel Mulley(hereafter “Mulley”) requests that this Court overturn his convictions on the grounds that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for unauthorized possession of ammunition; (2) the trial court erred in denying Mulley’s motion to exclude evidence; (3) the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument constituted impermissible vouching; and (4) the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony from a lay witness. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm Mulley’s convictions except his conviction for unlawfully possessing ammunition.
      Download Opinion   (51 kb)

May 19, 2009
S.CT.Crim. No.: 2007-078
Kishawn Smith (Appellant/Defendant,) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff.)
      Following a fatal shooting at a public housing community on St. Thomas, the People of the Virgin Islands charged Kishawn Smith with, among other crimes, second degree murder, possession of an unlicensed firearm, and unauthorized possession of ammunition. Smith was tried before a jury which found him guilty of these three offenses. Smith filed the instant appeal asserting that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. For the reasons which follow, we find the evidence is sufficient to sustain Smith‟s convictions for second degree murder and possession of an unlicensed firearm. However, because the People failed to present sufficient evidence that Smith was not authorized to possess ammunition, his conviction on that charge will be reversed.
      Download Opinion  (121 kb)

May 13, 2009
S.CT. Civ. No.: 2009-021
In Re: People of the Virgin Islands,
      This matter is before the Court pursuant to a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by the People of the Virgin Islands (hereafter “People”) requesting that this Court vacate the Superior Court’s February 20, 2009 and February 26, 2009 orders denying the People’s request to withdraw plea offers made to Basheem C. Ford and Jermaine S. Paris (collectively “Defendants”).1 For the reasons stated below, we shall grant the People’s petition and vacate the Superior Court’s orders.
      Download Opinion   (67 kb)

May 13, 2009
S.CT. Crim. No.: 2007-087
Elijah Ritter (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      Appellant, Elijah Ritter (hereafter “Ritter”), challenges the Superior Court’s July 5, 2007Judgment and Commitment, which sentenced him to seven and one-half years of incarceration for possession of a dangerous weapon during the commission of a crime of violence and one year of suspended incarceration for assault in the third degree, to run consecutively. On appeal, Ritter argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence; (2) expert testimony as to the medical treatment of the victim was improperly admitted; and (3) his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court failed to dismiss the venire panel or instruct the petit panel during the trial. For the reasons which follow, we will affirm the Judgment and Commitment.
      Download Opinion   (72 kb)

April 17, 2009
S.CT.Civ.No.: 2007-132
Jared Bernhardt (Appellant/Defendant) vs. Margaret Bernhardt (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      Appellant, Jared Bernhardt (hereafter “Jared”), challenges the October 30, 2007 Superior Court order denying his motion for reconsideration of the permanent restraining order issued against him. For the reasons which follow, we will reverse the Superior Court’s October 4, 2007 permanent restraining order, remand for a new hearing, and vacate the order denying the motion for reconsideration.
      Download Opinion   (45 kb)

April 14, 2009
S.CT.Civ. No.: 2007-036
Amelia Rivera-Mercado, (Appellant/Plaintiff) vs. General Motors Corp., (Appellee/Defendant.)
      Appellant Amelia Rivera-Mercado (hereafter “Rivera-Mercado”) appeals a February 28, 2007 Superior Court order granting summary judgment to Appellee General Motors Corporation (hereafter “Appellee” or “GMC”) and dismissing her underlying negligence action. For the following reasons, we shall reverse the trial court.
      Download Opinion   (149 kb)

March 25, 2009
S.CT. Crim. No. 2008-44
Edwardo Carmona, Jr., (Appellant/Defendant,) v. People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      THIS MATTER is before the Court on March 6, 2009 motions for dismissal of appeal and to withdraw as counsel filed by Appellant’s counsel. In its motions, counsel states that Edwardo Carmona, Jr., the Appellant in this matter, died after the notice of appeal in this matter was filed, and requests that this Court dismiss the appeal, remand the matter to the Superior Court so that it may vacate Appellant’s conviction, and allow counsel to withdraw from the matter. The Appellee has not filed an opposition to these motions.
      Download Per Curiam Order  (11 kb)

March 18, 2009
S.CT. Civ. Nos.: 2007-051; 2007-052; 2007-053
Luz Santiago, (Appellant/Defendant) v. People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff.) S. Ct. Crim. No. 2007-052; Marlene Lockhart, vs. (Appellant/Defendant,) People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff.) S.Ct. Crim. No. 2007-053; and Yahanatan Nugent, vs. (Appellant/Defendant,) People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff.) S.Ct. Crim. No.: 2007-051
      Appellants Luz Santiago (“Santiago”) and Marlene Lockhart (“Lockhart”) appealed from separate Superior Court orders denying their individual Stipulated Motions seeking to seal and to expunge1 their arrest and booking records in possession of the Virgin Islands Police Department and to simultaneously seal the records in the Superior Court (“Superior Court” or “trial court”) pertaining to their arrests. Appellant Yahanatan Nugent (“Nugent”) appealed from a denial of his Stipulated Petition with the People of the Virgin Islands (“People”) seeking to seal and to expunge his arrest record. The trial court dismissed with prejudice the underlying criminal cases against Santiago and Lockhart from which their motions emanated. However, the case against Nugent was dismissed without prejudice. Santiago, Lockhart, and Nugent (“Appellants”) appealed only the issues pertaining to their abortive attempts to expunge and to seal their arrest and booking records. Because of the commonality of issues, the cases will be decided together.2 For the following reasons, we agree with the trial court’s orders denying the parties’ Stipulated Motions and the Stipulated Petition to expunge and to seal the Appellants’ arrest and booking records. However, we will remand the two cases for the trial court to afford Santiago and Lockhart an opportunity to either withdraw from their agreements or Stipulated Motions with the People or to accept our decision in their individual cases. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the parties’ Stipulated Petition to expunge and to seal the arrest record in Nugent’s case.
      Download Opinion   (81 kb)

March 12, 2009
S. Ct. Crim. No. 2007-037
Sinclair Phillips, (Appellant/Defendant) v. People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      Appellant Sinclair Phillips1 (“Phillips” or “Appellant”), a/k/a Ragga or Shabb, asserts that his conviction should be overturned as the result of numerous trial court errors and his case remanded for a new trial. For the reasons which follow, the conviction will be affirmed.
      Download Opinion   (85 kb)

March 6, 2009
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-004
Albert Bryan, Comm. of Labor, Gov’t of the Virgin Islands, Dept. of Labor, and Footlocker Retail, Inc. d/b/a Champs Sports, (Appellants/Respondents,) vs. Carmen Ponce, (Appellee/Petitioner.)
      Appellant, the Government of the Virgin Islands, Albert Bryan, Commissioner of Labor, Department of Labor (hereafter “the Government”),2 challenges the December 18, 2007 Superior Court order holding that Appellee, Carmen Ponce(hereafter “Ponce”), was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. For the reasons which follow, we will affirm the Superior Court’s order.
      Download Opinion  (60 kb)

March 4, 2009
S.CT.Civ. Nos: 2007-006 and 2007-011
Franklin Martinez, (Appellant/Plaintiff) vs. Columbian Emeralds, Inc.( Appellee/Defendant)
      Appellant Franklin Martinez (“Martinez”) challenges the Superior Court’s order dismissing his complaint and ordering him to arbitration, and denying both his subsequent motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and his companion motion for stay of the proceedings pending arbitration. Martinez also challenges the award of attorney’s fees to Appellee Colombian Emeralds, Inc. (“CEI”). For the reasons stated below, the dismissal of the complaint and award of attorneys’
      Download Opinion   (254 kb)

February 18, 2009
S.CT.Civ. No.: 2008-016
Kelvin Dennie, (Appellant/Plaintiff) v. Arlene Swanston (Appellee/Defendant)
      Kelvin Dennie (“Dennie”) and Arlene Swanston (“Swanston”) are the father and mother of a son, Israel, who was born in 1995. Dennie and Swanston have been engaged in an ongoing dispute over the custody of Israel, and, in the instant action, Dennie petitioned the trial court to modify the child custody provisions of a consent decree he agreed to with Swanston. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. Dennie moved for reconsideration, arguing among other points, that the trial court erred at the hearing in admitting a report from the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) because he was not given a copy of the report prior to the hearing and because the preparer of the report was not available for cross-examination at the hearing. The trial court denied Dennie’s motion for reconsideration, and this appeal ensued. Because we agree with Dennie that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration, the court’s decision will be reversed and the matter remanded for a new hearing.
      Download Opinion   (38 kb)

February 11, 2009
S.C.T. Crim. No.: 2008-070
Dwayne Tobal, (Appellant/Defendant) v. People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff.)
      Appellant, Dwayne Tobal(hereafter “Tobal”), appeals from a Superior Court order denying his Motion for Reduction in Bail and Release from Custody to a Third Party Custodian and granting the Motion for Pre-Trial Detention brought by Appellee, the People of the Virgin Islands (hereafter “the People”). For the reasons which follow, we will reverse the trial court’s order and remand for a determination consistent with our decision in Browne v. People, Crim. No. 2008-022, 2008 WL 4132233 (V.I. Aug. 29, 2008), cert. denied, No. 08-4186 (3d Cir. Oct. 29, 2008), and the holdings herein.
      Download Opinion   (62 kb)

February 11, 2009
S.CT.Civ.No.: 2007-090
Nicole Latalladi, (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff.)
      Appellant, Nicole Latalladi(hereafter “Latalladi”), requests this Court to overturn her convictions for forgery and assuming the character of another and order a new trial on the grounds that (1) Latalladi’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause wereviolated; (2) the Superior Court erred in admitting hearsay evidence; (3) the Superior Court committed reversible error by failing to take the steps necessary to cure juror confusion regarding essential elements of the charged offenses; and (4) Latalladi was convicted on insufficient evidence to find her guilty of any of the charges against her. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
      Download Opinion  (34 kb)

February 9, 2009
S.CT.Civ.No.: 2008-007
Arlington Funding Services, Inc. and Alfred Arcidi, (Appellants/Plaintiffs,) vs. Wilfredo A. Geigel, (Appellee/Defendant.)
      Appellants Arlington Funding Services, Inc., and Alfred Arcidi (hereafter referred to individually as “Arlington” and “Arcidi” and collectively as “Appellants”) appeal from a Superior Court order granting summary judgment to Appellee Wilfredo A. Geigel (hereafter“Geigel” or “Appellee”) and dismissing Appellants’ complaint. For the following reasons, we shall dismiss Arcidi’s appeal for lack of standing and affirm the trial court’s judgment with respect to Arlington.
      Download Opinion   (61 kb)

January 22, 2009
S.CT. Civ. No.: 2008-058
In Re: Julio A. Brady, Petitioner
      This matter came before the Court on a Petition for Extraordinary Writ, which was filed on July 18, 2008 and seeks to have Superior Court Action No. 342/2008 removed to the Supreme Court for consideration by a panel of this Court. Pursuant to our Order of August 14, 2008, the Government of the Virgin Islands (“Respondent”) filed an answer to the petition on September 15, 2008, and the Clerk of the Superior Court transmitted a copy of the docket entries to this Court on September 26, 2008.
      Download Per Curiam Order  (26 kb)

January 21, 2009
S.CT.Civ. No.: 2008-014
Worldwide Flight Services (Appellant/Petitioner) vs. Government of the Virgin Islands, Department of Labor, et al. (Appellees/Respondents.)
      Appellant Worldwide Flight Services (hereafter “WWFS”) appeals a November 29, 2007 Superior Court order denying its Petition for Writ of Review as well as a February 1, 2008 order denying its motion for reconsideration of the November 29, 2007 order. The Government of the Virgin Islands (hereafter “Government” or “Appellee”) contends that these orders should be affirmed because WWFS did not timely file its petition. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the trial court with respect to both orders.
      Download Opinion   (26 kb)

January 21, 2009
S.CT.Crim.No. 2007-135
John A. Hypolite, (Appellant/Defendant) vs. People of the Virgin Islands, (Appellee/Plaintiff)
      Nancy D’Anna, Esq., (hereafter “D’Anna”) seeks to withdraw as court-appointed counsel to Appellant John Hypolite (hereafter “Appellant”) in this matter on the ground that Appellant’s sole apparent argument for reversing his convictions—that his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was purportedly violated—is wholly frivolous because the Superior Court applied the correct legal standard when it rejected Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction without considering the merits of Attorney D’Anna’s motion.
      Download Opinion   (29 kb)
Return to Top
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Know Your Court Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Justices Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Office of the Clerk Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Administrative Services Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Professional Regulation Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Court Rules Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Promulgation Orders Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Opinions Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Electronic Docket Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Electronic Filing Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Media Services Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court News Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Fee Schedule Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands FAQ Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Forms Download Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Reference Links Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Site Map Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands ADA
 Website Tools News from Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands  Website Policy News from Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands Sign Me Up Sign up for email from Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Website created by Web Solutions Omaha
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
 
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands