IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
SX 2022 CR 00043
Plaintiff,
vs
TYLEY SMITH a k a ‘ TYLER SMITH , CITE AS 2022 VI SUPER 72
Defendant
Appearances
Amie M Simpson, Esq
Virgin Islands Department of Justice
St Croix, U S Virgin Islands
For Plamtgff
Ramiro Orozco, Esq
Office of the Territorial Public Defender
St Croix, U S Virgin Islands
For Defendanl
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLOCKS, Judge
1] 1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant Tyley Smith a k a Tyler Smith s
(heleinafter “Defendant”) motion to dismiss, filed on June 17, 2022
BACKGROUND
'2 On February 18, 2022 the People of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter “People”) filed an
information against Defendant for the events that allegedly took place on or about June 2, 2021 as
set forth in the affidavit of police detective Raheem Benjamin dated February 18, 2022
Subsequently, on April 25, 2022, the People filed an amended information The amended
information charged Defendant with the following counts
Count I murder in the first degree Tyley Smith, acting with malice aforethought, did
willfully, deliberately and with premeditated design, kill Nancy Nieves, by beating and
strangling her in violation of Title 14 V I C § 922(a)(1)
SIth v People ofthe V I
SX 2022 CR 043
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 72
Page 2 of 7
Count II murder in the first degree Tyley Smith, while in the perpetration or attempted
perpetration of assault in the first degree and/or assault in the third degree, killed Nancy
Nieves by beating and strangling her in violation of Title 14 V I C § 922(a)(2);
Count III assault in the first degree Tyley Smith, with intent to commit murder, did assault
Nancy Nieves, by beating and strangling her, in violation of Title 14 V I C § 295(1), and
Count IV assault in the third degree Tyley Smith, did assault Nancy Nieves with
premeditated design and by use of means calculated to inflict great bodily harm by
strangling her in violation of Title 14 V I C § 297(a)(3)
(Amended Information )
1] 3 On June 17, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(ii) of
the Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure The deadline for the People to file an opposition
has since passedI and as of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the People has not
filed an opposition in response On August 1, 2022, the parties appeared before the Court for oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss
STANDARD OF REVIEW
f4 Rule 12(b)(3)(B) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a party to
challenge the defect in the charging document such as “charging the same offense in more than
one count (multiplicity) VI R CRIM P 12(b)(3)(B)(ii) Multiplicity occurs when an
information charges a single crime in several different counts ” People ofthe V] v Colon, 60 V I
149, 158 (VI Super Ct 2014) “[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of
two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses
or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not ”’ People
‘ According to the scheduling order entered on April 27, 2022, “[m]otions shall be filed within thirty (30) days of
arraignment with oppositions due fifteen (l5) days thereafier, and replies due within seven (7) days of any
opposition (Scheduling Order )
Smith v People ofthe V I
SX 2022 CR 043
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 V1 SUPER 72
Page 3 of 7
v Verglle 50V1 127 I34 35 (VI Super Ct Nov 13 2008) (citing Blockburgerv UnitedStaIes
284U S 299 304 (1932))
1] 5 Most cases involving the issue of multiplicity focus on whether a defendant has been
punished in multiple ways for committing the same criminal act or offense in violation of Title 14
V 1 C § 1042 or the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution Id However, there are also cases involving the issue of multiplicity based on
multiplicitous charges in an information or indictment, which raises other significant concerns 1d ,
60 V I at 158 59 “In particular, a multiplicitous charge may leave a prejudicial impression on a
jury at the commencement of trial that a defendant is alleged to have committed several crimes
when, as a matter of law, he or she is only being accused of committing one crime ” Id , 60 V I at
159 When determining the appropriate remedy for multiplicitous charges in the information to
wit, whether it is proper to leave the charges in place and exercise the appropriate remedy should
the need arise at sentencing, or whether the Court should proactively dismiss or consolidate the
charges” “[tlhis decision should be made on a case by case basis, considering such factors as
judicial economy, risk of prejudice, the totality of the charges against the defendant, and the
severity of those charges People ofthe V! v Prmgle 2021 VI LEXIS 74 1] 25 (V1 Super Ct
Sept 22 2021)
DISCUSSION
1! 6 In his motion Defendant argued that Count 11, Count 111 and Count 1V should be
dismissed Defendant made the following assertions in support of his argument (i) “[B]y not
dismissing Counts 2 4, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(ii) VI R CRIM P and in violation of 14
2 Title 14 V l C § 104 provides that [a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different
provisions of this Code may be punished under any of such provisions, but in no case may it be punished under more
than one‘ and “[a]n acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission
under any other Title 14 V l C § l04
Smuh v People ofthe V I
SK 2022 CR 043
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 72
Page 4 of 7
V I C §104 14 V I C §295(12) [sic] the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
State Constitution in that it would create a prejudicial impression on a jury at the commencement
of trial [and] create a danger that the Defendant may receive more than one sentence for a single
offense ” (Motion 1 2); (ii) ‘ A review of 14 V I C §295(12) [sic] clearly states that in a similar
matter where a defendant was convicted of ‘second degree murder’ the subsequent convictions of
first degree assault under 14 V I C §295(1) and third degree assault under 14 V I C §297(2)
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and 14 V I C §104 3 (Id , at 2); and (iii) “The, ‘ test for
determining whether the same act or transaction constitutes two offenses or only one is whether
conviction under each statutory provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
not" [and] [t]he fact that the respective Count Two, Count Three and Count [sic] allege the same
acts, on the same date, against the same victim, means that multiplicity has occurred ” (Id ) While
Defendant’s argument to dismiss Count II, Count III, and Count IV in his motion were perfunctory
and made without any analysis, only conclusory statements that they must be dismissed “pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(ii) VI R CRIM P and in violation of 14 V I C §104 14 V I C §295(12)
[sic], the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution, ’ Defendant
expanded on his arguments at the August 1, 2022 hearing
11 7 At the August 1, 2022 hearing, the People opposed Defendant’s motion to dismiss After
hearing Defendant’s arguments, the People agreed to withdraw Count III, assault in the first
degree
32(l))lezfendant referenced Title 14 V I C § 295(l2) citing Williams v People ofthe Virgin Islands 56 VI 82| (V I
‘ Degendant referenced United States v Buchanan, 485 F 3d at 278 & n 7, citing United States v Reedy, 304 F 3d
358 363 (51h Cir 2002) (quoting UnitedStates v Nguyen 28 F 3d 477 482 (5th Cir 1994)
5mm v People ofthe V I
SX 2022 CR 043
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 Vi SUPER 72
Page 5 of7
1] 8 The Court will accept the People’s withdrawal of Count 111 and deny as moot Defendant’s
motion to dismiss as to Count III The Court will discuss the remaining counts in turn
1 Count II
1,} 9 As noted above, Count 1 charged Defendant with the offense of murder in the first degree
in violation of Title 14 V I C § 922(a)(1), which provides that “[a]|l murder which is perpetrated
by means of poison, lying in wait torture, detonation of a bomb or by any other kind of willful,
deliberate and premeditated killing” and Count II charged Defendant with the offense of murder
in the first degree in violation of Title 14 V I C § 922(a)(2), which provides that ‘ [a]ll murder
which is committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape,
robbery or mayhem, assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree assault in the third
degree and larceny ” In this instance, the People did not charge Defendant with two separate
killings; instead, the People charged Defendant for the same conduct of killing Nancy Nieves in
Count I and Count 11 As such, Count II is multiplicitous and redundant of Count I As such, the
Court will grant Defendant’s motion as to Count II and dismiss Count II
2 Count IV
1] 10 As noted above, Count IV charged Defendant with the offense of assault in the third degree
in violation of Title 14 V I C § 297(a)(3), which provides that “[w]hoever, under circumstances
not amounting to an assault in the first or second degree assaults another with premeditated
design and by use of means calculated to inflict great bodily harm” commits third degree assault
Title 14 V I C § 297(a)(3) In Davis v People of the V] the Virgin Islands Supreme Court
explained
Both subsections 297(a) and 297(b) address assaults, and the elements of the crime of
Third Degree Assault must be framed in terms of the definition provided in section 291 of
title 14 Subsections (l) (4) of section 297 provide for, in addition to the elements as
8/19/2022
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
District of St. Croix
People of the Virgin Islands v. Case Number: SX-2022-CR-00043
Tyley D. Smith Charges: 14 V.I.C. 922(a) - Murder 1st Degree
14 V.I.C. 922(a) - Murder 1st Degree
14 V.I.C. 295(1) - Assault 1st. Degree With
Intent To Commit Murder
14 V.I.C. 297(3) - Assaults W/Premeditated
Design
NOTICE of ENTRY
of
Memorandum Opinion and Order
To: Amie Marie Simpson, Esq. Ramiro Orozco, Esq.
Please take notice that on August 19, 2022
a(n) Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated August 19, 2022 was/were entered
by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.
Dated: August 19, 2022 Tamara Charles
Clerk of the Court
By:
Iris Cintron
Court Clerk Supervisor