Malone v. PeopleS.Ct. Crim. No. 2008-042Opinion of the CourtPage 8 of 25Having been found guilty of all eight counts in the Second Amended Information,the trial court imposed sentence upon Malone in its May 19, 2008, Judgment andCommitment Order. 3This timely appeal ensued.II.JURISDICTIONThis Court has jurisdiction pursuant to title 4, section 32(a) of the Virgin IslandsCode. Title 4, section 32(a) provides that “[t]he Supreme Court shall have jurisdictionover all appeals arising from final judgment, final decrees or final orders of the SuperiorCourt or as otherwise provided by law.” V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 4, § 32(a). The trial court’sJudgment and Commitment is a final order of the Superior Court. Accordingly, we havejurisdiction over this matter.III.STANDARD <strong>OF</strong> REVIEWThe issues involve our interpretation of the Compulsory Process Clause of theSixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, our review is denovo. Ambrose v. People, S.Ct. Crim. No. 2007-41, 2008 WL 5422862, at *4 (V.I.Dec. 18, 2008) (quoting United States v. Toliver, 330 F.3d 607, 610 (3d Cir. 2003)). 43 During sentencing, Malone having been adjudicated guilty of all eight counts in the Second AmendedInformation, he was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Corrections for fifteen years incarcerationon each of Counts I, II, III, IV, VI and VIII. In addition, Malone was fined $25,000.00 on each of CountsII, IV, VI and VIII. Similarly, he was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Corrections for five yearsand fined five hundred dollars on both Counts V and VII. The terms of incarceration were ordered to runconcurrently as were the fines imposed upon Malone. (Appellant’s App. 5-7.)4 The United States Constitution applies to the United States Virgin Islands through Section 3 of theRevised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands. See Revised Organic Act of 1954, § 3, 48 U.S.C. § 1614,reprinted in V.I. CODE ANN., Historical Documents, Organic Acts, and U.S. Constitution at 86-88 (1995)(preceding 1 V.I.C.). The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, contained in the OrganicAct and statutorily conferred by Congress, “expresses the congressional intention to make the [F]ederalConstitution applicable to the Virgin Islands to the fullest extent possible consistent with its status as aterritory.” In re Brown, 439 F.2d 47, 50-51 (3d Cir. 1971). The right to a trial by jury is provided undersection 26 of the Revised Organic Act of 1954. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are applicable tocriminal trials in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands through Rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courtof the Virgin Islands, which states: “[t]he practice and procedure in the Superior Court shall be governed by
Malone v. PeopleS.Ct. Crim. No. 2008-042Opinion of the CourtPage 9 of 25Tangentially, the issues also involve enforcement of subpoenas pursuant to Rule 17 of theFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 5We review a trial court’s decision concerning whether to reopen a case on thebasis of a recanting witness by using the abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., U.S. v.Bujese, 371 F.2d 120, 125 (3d Cir. 1967); see also, United States v. Bolt, 776 F.2d 1463,1471 (10th Cir. 1985). However, as a general rule, an appellate court will not consider aconstitutional argument raised for the first time on appeal, unless the error is plain.United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).Under the plain error standard, we review for errors that are plain and that affect thesubstantial rights of the Appellant. Id. An error is a deviation from a legal rule, and anerror is plain if it is clear and obvious. See id. A plain error also must affect substantialrights. Id. We agree with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit(“Third Circuit”) that:Generally, an error affects substantial rights when it is prejudicial, i.e., itaffected the outcome of the [trial] court proceedings. Moreover, even ifsuch an error is found, the court of appeals has the authority to ordercorrection, but is not required to do so. We should exercise our discretionto correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity orpublic reputation of judicial proceedings.United States v. Dragon, 471 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2006).IV.ISSUESThe issues 6 are (1) whether after the Daniel Brothers had previously testifiedthe Rules of the Superior Court and, to the extent not inconsistent therewith, by . . . the Federal Rules ofCriminal Procedure[.]”5 Malone, however, represented in his brief on appeal that Akumba and Akeem were still under subpoenawhen his Motion to Reopen the Defense Case was made. (See Appellant’s Br. 4) (“mechanism forobtaining such compulsory process is Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”).