S.Ct. Crim. No. 2009-035

The Supreme Court holds that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant's convictions for three counts of disturbing the peace because police officers have no greater duty than civilians to submit to the threat of a criminal assault and imminence is not a requirement under the true threats doctrine. The Court further holds that disturbing the peace constitutes a petty offense and thus the appellant did not possess a right to a jury trial on those charges pursuant to section 3 of the ROA. Moreover, while the Superior Court erred when it invoked 14 V.I.C. § 4 to hold a bench trial on a negligent driving charge, the Superior Court's decision to acquit the appellant on that charge, combined with the fact that the Double Jeopardy clause prohibits a retrial on that offense, renders the Superior Court's error moot. Finally, the Court sua sponte vacates the appellant's sentence because the Superior Court illegally sentenced the appellant to a combined period of incarceration and probation that exceeded the maximum period of incarceration authorized by law.