IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN



GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS )

Plaintiff,



vs. CRIMINAL NO. F129/1990

JUNIEL CHARLESWELL

Defendant. 2



DENISE GEORGE-COUNTS, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General

Department of Justice



48-50 Kronprindsens Gade



St. Thomas, V. I. 00802



(Attorney for Government-Plaintiff)



RHYS S. HODGE, Esquire

19 Norre Gade



P. O. Box 6520



St. Thomas, V. I. 00804

(Attorney For Defendant)



HODGE, Presiding Judge



MEMORANDUM OPINION



(Filed: February af 1991)



The question before the Court is whether evidence



pertaining to emotional stress of the Defendant at the time of

the commission of the crimes charged should be excluded from

evidence under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. For

the reasons stated herein, the Court answers in the negative.

FACTS



This matter comes before the Court on the GOVERNMENT's

Motion In Limine to exclude evidence at trial in the

above-captioned case pertaining to the emotional stress of the



Defendant at the time of the commission of the crimes

Gov't. of the Virgin Islands vs.



J. Charleswell



Criminal No. PF129/1990



Page 2



charged on the ground that such evidence is irrelevant to the

issue of Defendant's guilt or innocence.



The GOVERNMENT charged defendant, JUNIEL CHARLESWELL,

with the following offenses: Count I, assault upon a peace

officer with a deadly weapon, in violation of 14 V.I.C. Section

297(5); Count II, possession of a deadly weapon with intent to

use the same unlawfully, in violation of 14 V.I.C. Section

2251 (a) (2) (B); Count III, exhibiting and drawing a deadly

weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner in the presence

of two or more persons, in violation of 14 V.1I.C. Section

621(1); and Count IV, maliciously injuring real and personal

property not his own in violation of 14 V.I.C. 1266.



The GOVERNMENT contends in support of its motion that it

anticipates the Defendant will offer evidence that he was under

extreme stress or emotional distress at the time of the

commission of the crimes charged, and that the Virgin Islands

Police Department was in some way responsible for his emotional

state at the time. Arguing that Virgin Islands law does not

recognize stress or emotional distress as a defense to any of

the crimes with which the Defendant is charged, the GOVERNMENT

asserts that any such evidence is irrelevant on the issue of

guilt and is therefore inadmissible under Rule 403, Federal

Rules of Evidence. The GOVERNMENT further contends that

allowing this kind of evidence to be presented at trial would

be tantamount to establishing an affirmative defense that does



not exist in law.

Gov't. of the Virgin Islands vs.

J. Charleswell

Criminal No. F129/1990

Page 3



Defendant opposes the motion on grounds that Third Degree

Assault is a specific intent crime, and if the Defendant is not

allowed to introduce evidence regarding his emotional state, he

would not receive a fair trial. The Defendant also contends

that Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence refers to relevant

evidence and that testimony regarding emotional stress would

not confuse the jury and that its probative value will far



outweigh any prejudice to the Government's case.



DISCUSSION



Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence provides:



Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by the

danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,

or misleading the jury, or by considerations of

undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation

of cumulative evidence.



Evidence of Defendant's stress or emotional distress at

the time of the commission of the crimes charged is relevant to

the issue of intent which is an element within each crime

charged which the GOVERNMENT must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt. To allow such evidence to be excluded from trial would

deny the jury an opportunity to hear relevant evidence that

goes to the issue of intent. Such exclusion would be

prejudicial to the Defendant since its probative value far

outweighs any danger of confusion of the issues or of

misleading the jury. The GOVERNMENT has the burden of proving



every element of each crime with which the Defendant has been



charged, including the element of intent. Indeed, any

Gov't. of the Virgin Islands vs.



J. Charleswell



Criminal No. F129/1990



Page 4



potential confusion can be addressed appropriately in instruc-

tions to the jury.



The sole test for determining the relevancy of evidence

is whether the factual information tendered for communication

to the fact finder would be helpful in the determination of the

factual matter that is in dispute. 1 S. Gard, Jones on Gard,

Jones on Evidence Section 4:1(6th Ed. 1972). Evidence of

Defendant's stress or emotional distress would be helpful to

the jury in determining the issue of whether the Defendant

intended to commit the crimes with which he is charged; and as



such would be neither confusing nor prejudicial.



CONCLUSION



Accordingly, evidence of Defendant's emotional stress at



the time of the commission of the crimes charged will be



admitted at trial, and the Government's Motion An Limine to



exclude such evidence will be Denieds



caren: Ppp [| (97



A./H

Presiding” guage