Government of the Virgin Islan v. Renell Lettsome

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: *FUENTES, VANASKIE and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 12. Judge: VANASKIE Authoring. (*The Honorable Julio M. Fuentes assumed senior status on July 18, 2016.)

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 15-3217
_____________
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
v.
RENELL A. LETTSOME,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
Division of St. Thomas and St. John
Appellate Division
(D.V.I. No. 3-06-cr-00068-001)
(District Judges: Honorable Harold W. Willocks; Honorable Raymond L. Finch;
Honorable Curtis V. Gómez)
______________
Argued May 17, 2016
______________
Before: FUENTES,* VANASKIE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: March 2, 2017)

Namosha Boykin
[ARGUED]
Law Offices of Pedro K. Williams
5212 Wimmelskafts Gade
Suite 200
St. Thomas, VI 00802
Counsel on behalf of Appellant

*

The Honorable Julio M. Fuentes assumed senior status on July 18, 2016.

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

Kimberly L. Salisbury
[ARGUED]
Office of Attorney General of Virgin Islands
Department of Justice
34-38 Kronprindsens Gade
GERS Complex, 2nd Floor
St. Thomas, VI 00802
Counsel on behalf of Appellee
____________
OPINION
____________

VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.
Following a jury trial in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, a jury convicted
Appellant Renell Lettsome on charges of second degree murder, attempted second degree
murder, assault, and arson. The jury also found him guilty on separate charges for the
use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of these crimes. The District Court of
the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, Appellate Division (the
“Appellate Division”), affirmed Lettsome’s convictions, with the exception of the
conviction for use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of arson. The
Appellate Division also affirmed the Superior Court’s sentence, which aggregated 57 ½



This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 3

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

years in prison and more than $35,000 in fines, plus restitution.1 Lettsome now appeals
the Appellate Division’s decision.2 For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
I.
The facts of this matter are recounted in great detail in the Appellate Division’s
per curiam opinion of August 21, 2015, and will only be briefly restated here. On
October 29, 2005, David Geiger and his teenage son, Nathan, were attacked in their home
in St. John, the United States Virgin Islands (“USVI”), after which their home was set on
fire. David was killed during the attack, and Nathan sustained serious injuries.
Several days before the brutal murder, David Geiger discovered that $50,000 had
been stolen from his house while Amber Taylor was house-sitting for him. David had
confronted Taylor, who denied any involvement in the theft.
Two days after the murder, the Virgin Islands Police Departure (“VIPD”)
interviewed Taylor. She denied any involvement in either the theft or the murder. On
November 11, 2005, Taylor changed her story. She told the VIPD that a man named
Tulius Stewart over-powered her while she was house-sitting the Geiger residence and
stole the money. She also told law enforcement that it was Lettsome, with whom she had
a child, who had killed David Geiger. Lettsome was upset that David Geiger was

The overall length of Lettsome’s prison term was unaffected by the reversal of the
conviction for the use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of arson.
1

Jurisdiction to hear Lettsome’s appeal was conferred on the Appellate Division pursuant
to 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(a) & (b). We have jurisdiction to review the Appellate Division’s
decision pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(c).
2

3

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 4

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

harassing Taylor about the theft, and wanted to stop the harassment. 3 Based upon
Taylor’s statements, the VIPD caused a warrant to be issued for the arrest of Lettsome.
On November 27, 2005, Lettsome walked into a police station in the British
Virgin Islands (“BVI”). He was arrested on suspicion of illegal entry into the BVI. After
receiving a “Caution Statement” from a BVI detective and acknowledging his
understanding of that statement,4 Lettsome proceeded to confess to the murder of David
Geiger, the assault on Nathan, and the attempt to burn down the Geiger house. Shortly
after confessing to the BVI detective, Lettsome was Mirandized by officers from the
VIPD. In great detail, Lettsome recounted his attack on the Geigers. He related that he
had waited outside the Geiger home until David went to sleep, then attacked him in his
bedroom with a metal pipe and knife. In an attempt to fend off the attack, David bit
Lettsome’s hand. Evidently awakened by the altercation, Nathan entered his father’s
bedroom. Lettsome turned his attention to Nathan, pushing him into the kitchen and
beating him with the pipe until he was unconscious. Lettsome then dragged Nathan into
the living room. After moving Nathan to the living room, Lettsome drank from a gallon
jug of water. While attempting to clean up the mess that had been made, Lettsome heard
David groan. He returned to David’s bedroom, where he beat him with the pipe until
David was dead. Then, in an attempt to conceal his crimes, Lettsome obtained some
As recounted by the Appellate Division, “[s]ometime after Taylor made her statement
the People assisted Taylor in relocating to Florida, on the ground that her safety was at
risk . . . .” (App. at 10.)
3

4

The Caution Statement is similar in some respects to the Miranda warnings required in
the United States.
4

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 5

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

torch fluid from a nearby golf course, covered David’s body with a mattress, and set fire
to the house. After he left the house, Lettsome honked his car horn to warn neighboring
tenants of the fire. Although the nearby tenants were able to save Nathan from the fire,
they could not rescue David.
After Lettsome’s confession, the VIPD officers transported him back to the USVI.
A twelve count information was returned against Lettsome. Count One accused
Lettsome of first degree murder, and Count Two charged use of a dangerous weapon
during the commission of first degree murder. Counts Three and Four charged second
degree murder and use of a dangerous weapon in the commission of second degree
murder. Counts Five through Ten concerned the assault on Nathan with a dangerous
weapon. Finally, Counts Eleven and Twelve charged first degree arson and the use of a
deadly weapon during the commission of arson.
At a pretrial conference held on March 24, 2006, the government informed the
Court and defense counsel that they were awaiting results of a DNA examination of
various pieces of evidence retrieved from the crime scene, including the water jug found
at the Geiger residence. In an order entered on May 25, 2006, the trial court scheduled a
final pretrial conference for August 2, 2006, with jury selection set for August 4 and trial
set for August 7, 2006. On July 24, 2006, just two weeks before trial was set to begin,
the prosecution filed a summary of the anticipated testimony of its DNA expert. The
summary indicated that blood found at the crime scene, including blood found on the
water jug, contained DNA that matched Lettsome’s DNA. On July 31, 2006, Lettsome

5

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 6

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

moved for permission to retain a DNA expert and to continue the trial. The trial court
granted permission to retain an expert, but refused to continue the trial.
On the morning of jury selection, the trial court raised a concern with respect to
the adequacy of those counts in the Information charging use of a dangerous weapon
during the commission of the underlying crimes. Although the Information correctly
cited the section of the crimes code making it unlawful to use a dangerous weapon in the
commission of a crime of violence, the Information itself failed to specifically allege use
of dangerous weapon during the commission of a crime of violence or that the conduct
alleged was unlawful. The prosecution promptly moved to amend the information to
correct the defects. Over the defense objection, the trial court granted the motion on the
first day of trial.
Also prior to trial, the trial court learned that the prosecution was responsible for
Amber Taylor’s relocation to Florida and for Lettsome’s unsuccessful attempt to have her
testify on his behalf. The trial court, concluding that the prosecution had engaged in
misconduct in causing Taylor’s absence, permitted Lettsome’s counsel to craft a written
narrative of the testimony he expected Taylor to provide. This narrative portrayed
Lettsome as a peaceful person and an excellent father. The narrative related that she had
told the police on November 11, 2005 that Lettsome was the murderer “so that [the
police] w[ould] stop harassing and threatening [her] and because that is what [she and]
Renell . . . had agreed to.” (App. 1017.) The narrative was read to the jury as Lettsome’s
final piece of evidence. In rebuttal, the prosecution presented the testimony of the VIPD
police officer who had interviewed Amber Taylor on October 31 and November 11,
6

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 7

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

2005. The jury was also presented with Taylor’s October 31 and November 11, 2005
statements to the police.
As noted above, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all charges with the
exception of the first degree murder charge and the related charge of use of a dangerous
weapon during the commission of first degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed
the jury verdict with the exception of the charge of use of a dangerous weapon during the
commission of arson. This timely appeal followed.
II.
Lettsome presents five arguments on appeal. First, Lettsome contends that the
Appellate Division erred in subjecting to harmless error review the Superior Court's
erroneous admission of Amber Taylor's statements to law enforcement, in violation of the
Confrontation and Compulsory Process Clauses of the Sixth Amendment. Lettsome also
complains that the Appellate Division erred in its application of the harmless error rule.
We disagree with Lettsome on both points.
First, the Supreme Court decided thirty years ago that Compulsory Process Clause
and Confrontation Clause errors are subject to harmless error review. See Crane v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 691 (1986) (holding that Compulsory Process Clause violations
are subject to harmless error review); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)
(holding that Confrontation Clause errors are subject to harmless error review). Although
Lettsome argues that Van Arsdall has been undermined by Crawford v. Washington, 541
U.S. 36 (2004), our Court, as well as every other Court of Appeals, has continued to
apply harmless error analysis to Confrontation Clause claims. See, e.g., Holland v.
7

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 8

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

Rivard, 800 F.3d 224, 243 (6th Cir. 2015); United States v. Carter, 776 F.3d 1309, 1328
(11th Cir. 2015); United States v. Gutierrez de Lopez, 761 F.3d 1123, 1147 (10th Cir.
2014); United States v. Jimenez, 513 F.3d 62, 78 (3d Cir. 2008). Indeed, Lettsome has
not cited a single case holding that a Confrontation Clause error is not subject to harmless
error review. We, of course, remain bound by extant Supreme Court precedent directly
on point, even if its reasoning has been called into question by other Supreme Court
decisions. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477,
484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to
rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should
follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling
its own decisions.”); United States v. Henderson, 841 F.3d 623, 626 n.3 (3d Cir. 2016).
Van Arsdall is directly on point and thus controlling. Accordingly, the Appellate
Division did not err in concluding that any Confrontation or Compulsory Process Clause
error was subject to harmless error review.
Lettsome contends that even if harmless error review was appropriate, the
Appellate Division’s harmless error analysis was insufficiently rigorous. Again, we
disagree. Although the Appellate Division did not articulate the precise harmless error
test it was applying, it did consider, as required, the totality of the record. A
Confrontation Clause or a Compulsory Clause violation requires an assessment of
whether the erroneous admission of Taylor’s statements was “harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684. As the Appellate Division accurately
recounted, “Lettsome was placed at Geiger’s house by abundant forensic evidence, and
8

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 9

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

Lettsome confessed in detail to the crimes.” (App. 36.) Taylor’s second statement to the
police merely corroborated what Lettsome had told the police. Furthermore, Lettsome
was able to read a statement of what he anticipated Taylor would have told the jury if she
were present to testify, and that statement recanted her November 11th report to the
police about Lettsome’s participation in the murder.5 Given the evidence against him,
including his confessions and the presence of his blood and DNA at the crime scene, we
find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any Sixth Amendment violation would not have
contributed to Lettsome’s conviction. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24
(1967) (“[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be
able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”). Thus, any
Sixth Amendment violation was harmless.
Second, Lettsome argues that the Appellate Division erred by affirming the trial
court’s decision to allow the Information to be amended to correct pleading defects in the
use of a dangerous weapon charges. We agree, however, with the Appellate Division that
Lettsome cannot claim he was unfairly surprised by the amendment because the charges
indeed “cited most of the elements and referenced the appropriate statutory provision.”
(App. 44.) Because the amended information did not charge an “additional or different”
offense, and because Lettsome was not unfairly surprised, Lettsome’s substantial rights
The Government contends that the “invited error” doctrine precludes Lettsome from
challenging the admission of Taylor’s statements. Asserting that “Lettsome
unquestionably invited the admission of Amber Taylor’s statement when defense counsel
helped craft the [narrative] and read it into the record,” the Government argues that the
admission of her statements to the police cannot be the basis for reversal of the verdict.
(Appellee’s Br. at 20.) In view of our disposition of this issue, we need not reach the
question of the applicability of the “invited error” doctrine.
5

9

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 10

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

were not prejudiced. See Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Bedford, 671 F.2d 758, 765-66
(3d Cir. 1982).
Third, Lettsome argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying
Lettsome’s pretrial motion to continue. The denial of a motion to continue “constitutes
an abuse of discretion only when it is so arbitrary as to violate due process.” United
States v. Kikumura, 947 F.2d 72, 78 (3d Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted); Gov’t of
Virgin Islands v. Charleswell, 115 F.3d 171, 174 (3d Cir. 1997) (“[T]rial judges must
balance the conflicting demands of court administration with the rights of the accused as
well as those of co-defendants and others awaiting trial who would be affected by the
consequences of a delay.”). Here, Lettsome knew as early as March 2006 that the
Government was awaiting results of a DNA analysis, and he also knew that the results
were expected by late July before his trial in August. Lettsome had ample time to move
for his own DNA expert. When Lettsome received the DNA analysis two weeks before
trial, he waited a week before filing his motion for a continuance. Under these
circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Superior Court abused its discretion by
denying Lettsome’s motion for a continuance.
Fourth, Lettsome argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his
conviction for first degree arson under Virgin Islands law for two reasons. First, he
argues that, at the time of the attack on the Geigers, USVI law defined first degree arson
as “maliciously burn[ing] in the night time an inhabited building in which there is at the

10

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 11

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

time some human being.” V.I. Code Ann., tit. 14, § 252(a) (2005) (emphasis added).6
Lettsome argues that, because the fire was not set until after midnight, i.e. in the “a.m.,”
he cannot be convicted of first degree arson. We believe, however, that the statute’s use
of the term “night time” is to be accorded its natural and commonsense meaning, i.e.
while it is dark outside. See United States v. Diallo, 575 F.3d 252, 256 (3d Cir. 2009)
(“The role of the courts in interpreting a statute is to give effect to Congress's intent. . . .
Because it is presumed that Congress expresses its intent through the ordinary meaning of
its language, every exercise of statutory interpretation begins with an examination of the
plain language of the statute.”) (citation omitted); see also Nighttime, Webster’s Third
New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1993) (“the time
The definition of arson in the first degree was changed substantially in 2013. One of the
changes was to eliminate the requirement that the fire be set in the “night time.” Section
252(a) of V.I. Code Ann., tit. 14 now defines arson in the first degree as follows:
6

(a) A person is guilty of arson in the first degree when, with
intent to destroy or damage a building, or while in the
commission of any felony, he starts a fire or causes an
explosion, and:
(1) the building is inhabited or occupied, or the person has a
reason to believe the building may be inhabited or occupied;
or
(2) it is a structure where persons are normally present, such
as: jails, prisons or detention centers; hospitals, nursing
homes or other health care facilities; department stores, office
buildings, business establishments, churches or educational
institutions during normal hours of occupancy; or other
similar structures; or
(3) any other person sustains serious physical injury as a
result of the fire or explosion or the firefighting as a result
thereof.

11

Case: 15-3217

Document: 003112552215

Page: 12

Date Filed: 03/02/2017

from dusk to dawn”). We have not found any persuasive support for the argument that
“night time” necessarily means before midnight. The evidence indisputably shows that
the fire was set between dusk and dawn, triggering application of the first degree arson
statute.
Lettsome also argues that he lacked the required element of “maliciousness”
because he honked his car horn to warn other tenants of the fire. Nonetheless, because
Lettsome confessed to starting the fire to remove evidence of his crimes, we agree that
there was sufficient evidence of maliciousness to convict Lettsome of first degree arson.
Fifth and finally, Lettsome argues that the Appellate Division erred in finding that
his sentence of more than 57 years in prison, plus fines exceeding $35,000, violate the
Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. “Generally, a
sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual
under the Eighth Amendment.” United States v. Miknevich, 638 F.3d 178, 186 (3d Cir.
2011). Here, Lettsome’s sentence is within the statutory maximums. Moreover, in light
of the seriousness of Lettsome’s crimes, we agree with the Appellate Division that
Lettsome’s sentence is not excessive. Therefore, we cannot find that his sentence
violates the Eighth Amendment.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the Appellate Division’s order of August
21, 2015.

12