Case Caption: People of the Virgin Islands v. BerthierCase Number: SCT-CRIM-2022-0044Date: 11/18/2024Author: Cabret, Maria M. Citation: 2024 VI 32Summary: The Superior Court’s July 26, 2022, judgment which granted a defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of reckless endangerment in the first-degree, based upon insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, is affirmed. Where the Superior Court enters a judgment of acquittal after a jury has rendered a guilty verdict, the People may appeal from that ruling without subjecting the defendant to double jeopardy. In order to obtain a conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment, the People must prove the defendant (1) recklessly engaged in conduct (2) in a public place that (3) created a grave risk of death to another person (4) under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life. Granting the post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal in this case, the Superior Court determined that the People had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt one of the necessary elements of the charge, specifically, that the roadway where the underlying incident occurred qualified as a “public place” for purposes of the statute. As with other elements of a crime, the People bear the burden to prove that the public may lawfully access the private road or that the private road is sufficiently near an area used by the public. Here the People failed to meet that burden. The evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, fails to establish that people other than residents of the neighborhood are authorized to use the road. While the Estate Frydenhoj road may connect to the “main road” at one end and a “ballfield or ballpark” on the other end, this fact, standing alone, does not establish that defendant discharged his rifle from a private location that was nevertheless close to areas that are used by the public. The evidence established only that the defendant shot at the victim from the portion of the road that bordered private residences. Even assuming that either the ballfield or “main road” is a place accessible to the public, the People produced no evidence to show how far the shooting occurred from either location, let alone any evidence to establish that discharging a rifle in that portion of the Estate Frydenhoj road could easily result in injury to innocent people at those public places. Therefore, the Superior Court correctly held that the People failed to introduce sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could conclude that the defendant shot at the victim in a “public place,” and it committed no error when it granted the post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal on the reckless endangerment charge. The July 26, 2022 order setting aside the reckless endangerment conviction is affirmed.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion