2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-27-2007 

# Govt of VI v

. S uare z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4477

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Govt of VI v

. S uar ez " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 685. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/685NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 4477 GOVE RN M E NT OF T HE VI RG I N I S L ANDS

v . OM AR J AM I L SUA REZ A ppel l ant O n A ppeal Fr om the D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands

D i vi s i on of St . T hom as and St . J ohn ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 04- cr - 00117) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. R aym ond L . Fi nch, C hi ef J udge D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. C ur t i s V . G om ez T e rrito ria l Ju d g e : H o n . P a tricia D . S tee le

A r gued M ay8, 2007 B E FO R E : SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed J ul y27, 2007) M aur een Phel an D ol ace M cLean ( A r gued) O ffi ce of the A t t orneyG ener al of the V i r gi n I s l ands D epart m entof J us t i ce 34- 38 K r onpr i nds ens G ade G E R S C om pl ex, 2nd Fl oor C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as U SV I 00802 A t t orney s forA ppel l eeIn th e in ter e st o f p riv a c y , w e a b b re v iate th e n a m e s o f th e c h ild re n in v o lv e d in th is 1 c a s e . 2 St ephen A . B rus ch ( A r gued) T h e B rusc h L aw F irm N o. 40A N orr e G ade P. O . B ox 988 C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as U SV I 00804 A t t orneyforA ppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: O m arJ ami l Suar ez appeal s hi s convi ct i ons foraggr avat ed r ape i n the fi r s tdegr ee a n d ra p e in th e f

irst d e g re e u n d e r V irg in Isla n d s la w . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill aff i r m Suar ez’ s aggr avat ed r ape c onvi ct i on. W e w i l l , how ever , r ever s e hi s fi r s t - degr ee r ape c onvi ct i on and r emand w i th i ns truct i ons t o ent era j udgm entof ac qui t t al on that char ge. I. W e r ecountthe evi dence , as w e must , i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent . O n J ul y31, 2002, t en- y earol d A . B . vi s i t ed the home of Susi e B ry an, her 1 aunt , and Suar ez, B r y an’ s l ong- t i m e compani on. B ry an w entt o run s om e err ands , l eavi ng Suar ez t o s upervi s e both A . B . and hi s four - y earol d daught er , S. S. A ft erSuar ez a nd t heA .B . d e d u c e d th a t th e o b je c t w a s n o t a h o t d o g , s ee JA at 32 0 (a h o t do g “w o u ldn ’t 2 g e t b ig g e r” ), a T w in k ie , s ee i d. (“T h at’s flat on the b o tt o m an d rou n d o n the to p ”), or a b a n a n a tw is t, s e e id . (“A b an an a tw istis a b u n w ith cre am stuf f in it . ”). 3 tw o chi l dr en r eturned home fr om a tr i p t o the comm uni tys w i m m i ng pool , he as ked them w hethertheyw ant ed t o pl aya “t as t i ng game. ” A . B . w as unfami l i arw i th the game, but a g re e d to p la y . Suar ez l ed A . B . and S. S. i nt o hi s bedr oom and bl i ndfol ded ea ch chi l d w i th a s ock a n d a s h i r t . H e th e n r e p e a t e d l y p l a c e d h i s f i n g e ri n t o e a c h o f

th e i rm o u th s , f

l a v o r e d b y a di ffe r entfood orcondi m enton eac h occa s i on, and as ked them t o i dent i fythe s ubs t ance on hi s fi ngerbyt as t e. A ft erA . B . had t as t ed s ever al di ffe r enti t ems, w hi ch s he i dent i fi ed as o n ion d ip, barb eq u e sa u ce , co co a p o w d er, an d “so m ethin g li k e a T w ink ie . . . ca ll [e d ] a banana tw i s t , ” J A at297, Suar ez i ns ert ed “s om ethi ng bi g” i nt o herm outh and t ol d her “don’ tbi t e i t . ” J A at298. A . B . t es t i fi ed thatthe obj ectw as “r ound” and “ di dn’ tfee l l i ke a fi nger , ” and thati t“s t art ed off a l i t t l e s m al l and gotbi gger. . . . i tw as ki nd of . . . s oft and gothar der . ” J A 298- 99. A . B . al s o t es t i fi ed thats he thoughtthatthe obj ectm i ghtbe Suar ez’ s peni s ( s he had pr evi ous l ys een both herfather ’ s and br other ’ s peni s es i n the s how er ) , butadmi t t ed thats he coul d notbe ce r t ai n s i nce s he w as bl i ndfol ded. 2 A f ter A .B . told S u a re z th a t th e o b jec t d id n o t h a v e a n ytas te, h e su g g e ste d th a t th is w a s b e c a u se sh e “ [ h a ]d n ’t su c k [ e d ] f u rth e r u p .” J A a t 2 9 8 -9 9 . S u a re z u se d h is h a n d to “pus h” A . B . ’ s head “ a l i t t l e forw ar d. ” J A at298- 99. T he obj ectt ouched A . B . ’ s thr oat a n d m a d e h e r f

e e l lik e s h e w a s g o in g to v o m it. S h e a ls o f e lt “ littl e h a ir s ” a g a in s t h e r f a c e .4

J A at298. A . B . admi t t ed thatnei thers he norSuar ez s ai d anythi ng aft erhe pus hed her h e a d f o rw a rd . JA a t 2 9 9 -3 0 0 . A .B . als o a d m itt e d th a t S u a re z d id n o t to u c h h e r w ith h is h a n d s d u ri n g th e e n c o u n te r o th e r t h a n w h e n h e p u s h e d h e r h e a d f o rw a rd . J A a t 2 9 9 . M e a nwhi l e , S. S. be ga n u r gi ng Sua r e z t o s w i t c h r ol e s w i th the m. Sua r e z t ol d S. S. t o “l et[hi m ] fi ni s h up” w i th A . B . , butS. S. cont i nued t o pr es s hi m . J A at302. Suar ez th e n a s k e d A .B . w h e th e r s h e “ w a n t[ e d ] t o s to p ” a n d s h e re s p o n d e d y e s . J A a t 3 0 2 . A cc o rdin g to A . B . , S u are z the rea fter p lace d the o b ject i n to h er m o u th tw o o r th ree m o re t i m es befor e fi nal l ys t oppi ng. Suar ez w ai t ed a “ coupl e of mi nut es ” bef or e r emovi ng A .B .’s b lin d f

o ld , a t w h ic h p o in t s h e n o tic e d “ w h ite s tu f f ” o n h is s h o rt s . J A a t 3 0 3 . A . B . then j oi ned S. S. i n ur gi ng Suar ez t o t ake hi s turn pl ay i ng the “t es t i ng game. ” S u a r e z a g r e e d , a n d th e yc o n t i n u e d t o p l a yth e g a me f o ra b r i e f p e r i o d . W h e n th e g a me ended, A . B . and S. S. w enti nt o t he l i vi ng r oom and w at ched t el evi s i on w hi l e Suar ez us ed th e b a th ro o m . L a ter th a t d a y , S u sie B ry a n re tu rn e d h o m e a n d to o k A .B . to th e h o m e o f h e r g re a tgr andmot her , I nga B r y an. Shor t l yaft erherarr i val , A . B . appr oache d I nga, s car ed and ups et , and t ol d heraboutthe “t as t i ng game” and how s he bel i eved thatSuar ez mayhave in s e rt e d h is p e n is in to h e r m o u th . S uarez w as subsequ entl ycharged w i th o ne co un tof ag gravat ed rape in the fir st degr ee unde rV . I . C ode t i t . 14, § 1700( a) ( 1) , and one c ountof r ape i n the fi r s tdegr ee u n d er V . I. C o d e ti t. 1 4 , § 1 7 0 1 (2). T h e c ase w as tri ed b ef o re a juryin the S u p erior C o u rtW e have j ur i s di ct i on under48 U . S. C . § 1613a( c) , and, beca us e thi s cas e ca m e t o t he 3 A p p e llate D iv isio n “ [ p ]rio r to th e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e [ S u p re m e C o u rt o f

th e V irg in I s l ands ] , ” i thad j ur i s di ct i on under48 U . S. C . § 1613a( a) . I f s uch a c as e w er e appe al ed t odayfr om the Super i orC our t , i tw oul d pr ocee d di r ect l yt o the Supr eme C our tof the V ir g in Is la n d s f

o r a p p e lla te re v ie w . See V . I. C o d e ti t. 4 , § 3 2 (gra n ti n g the S u p rem e C o u rt o f th e V ir g in Island s jurisdicti o n o v er a p p ea ls from the S u p erior C o u rt ). T hi s courtr evi ew s deci s i ons of the Super i orC our tus i ng the s ame st andar d of r evi ew 4 a p p lie d b yth e A p p e lla te D iv is io n . Tyl erv. A r m s tr ong , 3 6 5 F . 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); G ov'tof the V

i rgi n Islan ds v. A l bert , 2 4 1 F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 7 n .3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); Sem perv. Sant os , 845 F. 2d 1233, 1235- 36 ( 3d C i r . 1988) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe S u p e ri o r C o u rt ’s le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s , b u t o n ly re v ie w its f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o r c le a r e rr o r. G ov’ tof the Vi r gi n I s lands v . Fa h ie , 419 F. 3d 249, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he Super i or C o u rt ’s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s a re re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G o v ’t o

f th e V irg in I s lands v. R i l ey , 9 7 3 F .2 d 2 2 4 , 2 2 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). 5 o f th e V ir g in Island s (th en k n o w n as th e T errit o ri al C o u rto f th e V ir g in Island s). T h e jury convi ct ed Suar ez on both count s , and the Super i orC our tdeni ed Suar ez’ s pos t - tr i al m o tio n s. S u a re z a p p e a led to th e A p p e llate D iv isio n o f th e D istric t C o u rt o f

th e V irg in I s l ands ( “A ppel l at e D i vi s i on”) , w hi ch af fi r m ed both convi ct i ons . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 3 S u a re z ra ise s s e v e ra l ar g u m e n ts o n a p p e a l, ch a llen g in g th e e f f e c tiv e n e ss o f

h is tr i al couns el on var i ous gr ounds underthe Si xth A m endment , cert ai n evi dent i aryrul i ngs bythe S up eri or C ou rt , and the suf fi ci encyof the evidence sup po rt i ng his con vict i on s. Suar ez a l s o cont ends thatthe governm ents uborned per j ur ed t es t i m onyand des tr oy ed pot ent i al l yexcul pat oryevi dence i n vi ol at i on of B r ady v. Mar yland , 3 7 3 U . S . 8 3 (19 6 3 ). 4 II. T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on corr ect l yr ej ect ed the maj or i tyof Suar ez’ s cont ent i ons , and ther e i s l i t t l e w e ca n add t o i t s thor ough anal y s i s i n thi s r es pect . W e agr ee w i th theS u a re z ’s in e f f e c tiv e n e ss c laim s a re b a se d o n trial c o u n se l’s f a ilu re to o b

jec t to 5 im p rop er e x p ert t esti m o n yb yD r. M eli n d a A str an ; fail u re to c all A . B . ’s gra n d m o ther, N ancyB ry an, as a w i tnes s attr i al ; and fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o i m pr operar gum entbythe p ro se c u to r re g a rd in g th e re f u sa l o f S u a re z a n d S u sie B ry a n to a llo w in v e stig a to rs to q u e s tio n S .S . a b o u t th e in c id e n t. 6 A ppel l at e D i vi s i on’ s deni al of Suar ez’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s w i thout pr ej udi ce t o hi s r i ghtt o r ai s e thos e cl ai m s on col l at er al r evi ew . “I thas l ong been the 5 pr act i ce of

thi s courtt o defe rthe i s s ue of i neff ect i venes s of tr i al couns el t o a col l at er al att ack, ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 327 F. 3d 268, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and w e per cei ve no b a s is f o r d e p a rt in g f

ro m th is g e n e ra l ru le h e re . W e lik e w ise a g re e w ith th e A p p e llate D iv isio n th a t th e S u p e rio r C o u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in it s d iscreti o n in ad m itti n g Ing a B ry an ’s t esti m o n yreg ard ing A . B . ’s ou t- o f-c o u rt sta tem e n ts a b o u t th e “ tas tin g g a m e ,” u ttere d a p p ro x im a telytw o h o u rs a f ter th e in c id e n t, u n d e r t h e e x c ite d u tte ra n c e e x c e p tio n to th e h e a rs a yru le . See V . I . C ode t i t . 5, § 932( 4) ( b) ( r ecogni zi ng hear s ayexce pt i on fors t at ement s m ade “ w hi l e the dec l ar antw as underthe stre ss o f a n e rv o u s e x c item e n t ca u se d b ysu c h p e rc e p tio n ” ); acco rd F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 3 (2 ). W h ile S u a re z p ro tes ts th a t th e tim e lap se b e tw e e n th e a lleg e d ra p e a n d A .B .’s s tate m e n ts t o B rya n g a v e h e rs u f

f i c i e n to p p o r tu n i ty t o r e f l e c to n th e e n c o u n t e ra n d f a b r i c a t e a s t o r y, th e r e b yr e n d e r i n g th e s t a t e me n t s b e y o n d th e s c o p e o f th e e x c i t e d u t t e r a n c e e x c e p t i o n , we thi nk the Super i orC our thad an a dequat e bas i s t o r eac h a contr aryr es ul tcons i der i ng t he a g e o f th e d e c la ra n t a n d th e n a tu re o f th e e v e n t a b o u t w h ic h s h e s p o k e . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Hef

f er on , 3 1 4 F .3 d 2 1 1 , 2 2 2 -2 3 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (u p h e ld a d m iss ib ili tyo f c h ildSuar ez a l s o compl ai ns thatadmi s s i on of A . B . ’ s out - of- courts t at ement s t o B ry an 6 conce rni ng the “t as t i ng game” vi ol at ed hi s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s . B as ed on our r evi ew of the r ecor d, i tdoes notappea rthatSuar ez r ai s ed thi s ar gum entbefor e the Super i orC our t , and the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on di d notexpr es s l yaddr es s i ton appea l . E ven as s um i ng thatSuar ez pr oper l ypr es erved hi s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e cha l l enge, w e conc l ude thati tl acks m er i t . C ons i s t entw i th hi s r i ght s underthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, Suar ez ha d th e o p p o rt u n ity to , a n d d id , c ro s s -e x a m in e A .B . a b o u t th e c h a lle n g e d s ta te m e n ts a t tr ia l. 7 vict i m ’s st at em ents , m ade w i thin tw o h ou rs of sex ual encou nter , as exci t ed u t t erances, not i ng that“w hen the vi ct i m decl ar anti s a y oung chi l d . . . the pos s i bi l i tyof fa br i cat i on a n d c o a c h in g a re lim ited a n d th e lik e lih o o d th a t th e tra u m a f ro m th e sta rtling e v e n t w ill rem ain w ith the c h il d fo r som e ti m e a fter the en co u n ter i s str o n g ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). 6 L i ke the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, w e al s o fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the Super i or C our t ’ s deci s i on t o pr ohi bi tSuar ez f r om pr es ent i ng evi dence , thr ough the t es t i m onyof h is s iste r-in -la w , L isa Ja m il, th a t h e h a d c a re d f o r y o u n g c h ild re n o n m a n yo c c a sio n s in the pas tw i thouti nci dent . C ontr aryt o Suar ez’ s as s ert i on, thi s evi dence does not cons t i tut e habi tevi dence forthe r eas ons not ed bythe A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, norcan i tbe f a ir ly ch a ra c te ri z e d a s a d m is s ib le c h a ra c te r e v id e n c e . See G ov’ tof the Vi r gi n I s lands v. G r ant , 775 F. 2d 508, 512 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( evi dence pr offe r ed t o s how abs ence of pr i or m isco n d u ct byd ef

en d an t i s n o t adm issi b le as c h ara cter ev iden ce , at l ea st i n ca ses w h ere defe ndant ’ s char act eri s notes s ent i al el ementof the cha r ged off ens e) . T o the ext entt hat S u a re z c o n ten d s th a t th e S u p e rio r C o u rt’s a d v e rse ru lin g d e p riv e d h im o f h is cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o pr es enta compl et e def ens e, w e ar e unper s uaded. T o es t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , a def endantm us ts how : ( 1) he w asI n r evi ew i ng a j uryver di ctfors uffi ci encyof the evi dence , “w e det erm i ne w hether 7 ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence that , w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent , w oul d al l ow a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctt o convi ct . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Helbl i ng , 209 F. 3d 226, 238 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng G ov’ tof the Vi r gi n I s lands v. C har l es , 72 F. 3d 4 0 1 , 4 1 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 )). See V . I. C o d e ti t. 1 4 , § 1 6 9 9 (e). 8 8 depr i ved of the opportuni tyt o pr es entevi dence i n hi s favor ; ( 2) the exc l uded evi dence w as m at er i al t o t he def

ens e, i . e. , ther e i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood thatcons i der at i on of the ev iden ce w o u ld h av e a ff ec ted th e jury ’s j u d g m en t; an d (3) the d ep ri v ati o n w as a rbitrary o r d is p ro p o rt io n a te to a n yle g itim a te e v id e n tia ry o r p ro c e d u ra l p u rp o s e . G ov’ tof the V irg in Isla n d

s v . Mill s , 956 F. 2d 443, 446 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . Suar ez pl ai nl ycannots at i s fy the l att ertw o r equi r ement s her e. A s the A p p ell ate D ivisi o n also co n clud ed , there is suf ficien t evid en ce to su p p o rt Suar ez’ s aggr avat ed r ape c onvi ct i on under§ 1700( a) ( 1) . T o m eeti t s bur den on the 7 aggr avat ed r ape c har ge, the governm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt th a t (1 ) S u a re z e n g a g e d in a n a c t o f se x u a l in ter c o u rse o r so d o m y , w h ich is d e f in e d to i ncl ude fe l l at i o, w i th A . B . ; ( 2) A . B . w as nothi s s pous e; and ( 3) A . B . w as underthe age 8 o f th irtee n . S u a re z o n lytak e s is su e w ith th e f irst e lem e n t, arg u in g th a t th e e v id e n c e is i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthathe i ns ert ed hi s peni s , as oppos ed to s o m e o th e r o b

je c t, in to A .B .’s m o u th . T h e e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t th e o b jec t, w h ich S u a re z e x p re ss lyin stru c ted A .B . n o t to b ite, re se m b led a p e n is in sh a p e a n d siz e . T h e o b jec t h a rd e n e d a n d e x p a n d e d in9

di m ens i on w hi l e i n A . B . ’ s m outh. A ft erSuar ez pus hed A . B . ’ s head f artherforw ar d on the o b ject, sh e f

elt“li tt le ha ir s” a g ains t her f ac e. W h en S u are z f

inallyrem o v ed A . B . ’s bl i ndfol d, s he not i ced aw hi t e- col or ed s ubs t ance on hi s s hor t s . C ons i der i ng thi s evi dence as a w h o le an d in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o the g o v ern m en t, tog ethe r w ith A . B . ’s t es t i m onythats he her s el f thoughtthatthe obj ecti n herm outh m i ghtbe Suar ez’ s peni s as o p p o se d to h is f

in g e r o r so m e typ e o f

f o o d su b sta n c e , w e a g re e w ith th e A p p e llate D ivisi o n that the ju ryco u ld h av e d raw n the re aso n ab le i n fe ren ce that the o b ject i n A . B . ’s m ou th w as, i n fac t , S uarez’s pen i s. III . A l though t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on di d nots peci fi cal l yaddr es s Suar ez’ s per j uryand B r ady claim s, thes e c o n tention s n ee d o n lyd etain u s b ri ef ly . W e f ir st r ejec t Su are z’s ar gum entthatthe governm ents uborned per j urybyperm i t t i ng A . B . t o t es t i fythatthe o b jec t in h e r m o u th sta rte d o u t so f t an d “ g o t h a rd e r.” S u a re z re lies e x c lu siv e lyo n a p o sttrial a f f id a v it su b m itt e d b yN a n c yB ry a n , A .B .’s g ra n d m o th e r, w h o d id n o t tes tifya t trial, w h ich sta tes th a t A .B . told h e r o n th e n ig h t o f th e in c id e n t th a t th e o b jec t S u a re z p lac e d in herm outh onl yfel ts oft . W hi l e B r y an’ s aff i davi tm ays ugges tthatA . B . ’ s tr i al t es t i m ony w as notw hol l ycons i s t entw i th herear l i eracc ount s of the i nci denti n ques t i on, i tfal l s far s hor tof es t abl i s hi ng thatA . B . ’ s t es t i m onyw as per j ur i ous , m uch l es s thatthe governm ent k n o w in g ly m a d e u s e o f f a ls e te s tim o n yto o b ta in S u a re z ’s c o n v ic tio n . See Lam ber tv. B la c kw e ll , 3 8 7 F .3 d 2 1 0 , 2 4 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (n o tin g th a t “[ d ]isc re p a n c yis n o t en o u g h toM s . B err yhad ac compani ed M r . B erryt o the pol i ce s t at i on. J A at426. 9 10 p ro v e p e rju ry ” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. P ayne , 9 4 0 F . 2 d 2 8 6 , 2 9 1 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (m ere ch all en g e to w itn ess’s testi m o n yb yan o ther w itn ess d o es n o t est ab li sh p erjury ). W e al so con cl ud e t hat Suarez’s B r ady cl ai m l acks m er i t . R el y i ng on the t es t i m ony of R andyB err y , A . B . ’ s father , thatthe pol i ce of fi cert o w hom he r eport ed the i nci dent

“ rip p e d u p ” th e p o lice re p o rt, JA a t 4 2 6 , S u a re z c o n ten d s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t im p ro p e rly depr i ved hi m of ac ces s t o m at er i al and pot ent i al l yexcul pat oryevi dence i n the form of the di s car ded pol i ce r eport . A s B err yexpl ai ned, how ever , the pol i ce of fi cer“r i pped up” the pol i ce r eportupon l earni ng thatthe i nci denthad occ urr ed w hi l e A . B . w as i n the ca r e of h er m o ther, B erry ’s fo rm er w ife, an d sim p ly“started fil li n g o u t a ne w o n e w ith M s. B erry [li sted as] f

il ing the re p o rtb ec au se th e inc iden t hap p en ed in h er c are . ” JA at 42 6 . T h ere 9 i s no r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe s ubs t ance of the di s car ded pol i ce r eportdi ffe r ed i n any m a ter ial w a yf

ro m th e n e w re p o rt, w h ich S u a re z d o e s n o t su g g e st w a s w ith h e ld f ro m h im b yth e g o v e rn m e n t, o r t h a t th e in itia l r e p o rt o th e rw is e c o n ta in e d e x c u lp a to ry in f o rm a tio n . I V. W e m u st s til l co n sid e r S u a re z ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e re is in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is f

irst-d e g re e ra p e c o n v ictio n . T h e V irg in Isla n d s’ f irst-d e g re e ra p e sta tu te p ro v id e s th a t: W hoeverperpetr at es an ac tof s exual i nt er cour s e ors odom yw i th a per s on- ( 1) w hen thr ough i di ocy , i m beci l i tyoranyuns oundnes s of m i nd,11 ei thert empora r yorperm anent , the per s on i s i ncapa bl e of gi vi ng c o n se n t, or , b yre a so n o f m e n tal o r p h y sic a l w e a k n e ss o r im m a tu rity oranybodi l yai l m ent , the per s on does notoffe rr es i s t ance ; ( 2) w hen the per s on’ s r es i s t ance i s for ci bl yover come; (3 ) w h e n th e p e rso n ’s r e sis tan c e is p re v e n ted b yf e a r o f im m e d iate a n d g re a t b o d ilyh a rm w h ich th e p e rso n h a s re a so n a b le c a u se to bel i eve w i l l be i nfl i ct ed upon the per s on; (4) w hen the p ers on ’s res i st ance is preven t ed b ystup or or w eakn ess o f m in d p ro d u c e d b ya n in to x ica tin g , n a rc o tic o r a n a e sth e tic a g e n t, orw hen the per s on i s know n bythe def endantt o be i n s uch s t at e of s tupororw eakne s s of m i nd fr om anycaus e; or ( 5) w hen the per s on i s , atthe t i m e, uncons ci ous of the natur e of the a c t an d th is is k n o w n to th e d e f e n d a n tis g u ilty o f

ra p e in th e f

ir s t d e g re e . . . . V .I. C o d e tit. 1 4 , § 1 7 0 1 . C ountT w o of the I nform at i on char ged thatSuar ez c om m i t t ed fi r s t - degr ee r ape u n d e r su b se c tio n (2 ) o f

th e sta tu te, a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro c e e d e d a t trial so lelyu n d e r th is s ubs ect i on. T o s us t ai n i t s bur den under§ 1701( 2) , the governm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthat : ( 1) Suar ez pe rpetr at ed an a ctof s exual i nt er cour s e or s o d o m yw ith A .B .; ( 2 ) A .B . re s is te d ; a n d (3 ) S u a re z f o rc ib ly o v e rc a m e h e r r e s is ta n c e . Suar ez c ont ends thatthe hi s r ape c onvi ct i on m us tbe overturned bec aus e the governm ent fai l ed t o pr ove thatA . B . aff i r m at i vel yr es i s t ed hi s i l l i ci tadvanc es . W e agr ee. I n r eac hi ng a contr aryr es ul t , both the Super i orC our tand the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on r el i ed i n parton A . B . ’ s t es t i m onythatSuar ez t ol d hers he nee ded t o “s uck furtherup” andW e not e thatr es i s t ance bythe vi ct i m i s a s i ne qua non of § 1701( 2) al one; none of 10 th e o th e r f

o u r su b se c tio n s o f

th e sta tu te c o n tain s a re sis tan c e re q u ire m e n t.

12 then p u sh ed h er h ea d “a li tt le fo rw ard . ” S u are z’s a cti o n s w ere a d ir ec t r esp o n se to A . B . ’s c o m m e n t th a t sh e d id n o t tas te a n yth in g o n th e o b jec t in h e r m o u th , h o w e v e r, an d th e re is no aff i r m at i ve evi dence i n t he r ecor d thatA . B . offe r ed anydegr ee of r es i s t ance , phy s i cal orotherw i s e, w hen he pus hed herhead f orw ar d. I n fac t , A . B . admi t t ed thats he di d not s a ya n yth i n g t o S u a r e z a tth a tp o i n ti n th e e n c o u n t e r . Th e u n f o r tu n a t e r e a l i tyi s th a tA. B. i n al l l i kel i hood di d notr es i s tSuar ez’ s advanc es beca us e s he w as underthe m isi m p ression that sh e w o u ld b e a b le t o tast e a n d iden ti fythe o b ject’s flav o r - th e v ery obj ect i ve of the “t as t i ng game” - i f s he s i m pl yfol l ow ed Suar ez’ s i ns truct i ons . W hi l e a p e rp e tra to r o f

so d o m yw h o e m p lo y s s u c h d e c e p tiv e tac tics to a v o id re sis tan c e b yh is v ictim m ig h t w e ll b e su c c e ss f u llyp ro se c u ted u n d e r a n o th e r su b se c tio n o f th e V irg in Is la n d s ’ f

ir s t- d e g re e ra p e s ta tu te , s ee § 1 7 0 1 (5 ) (c rim in a lizin g so d o m yw h e re th e v ictim “is, at th e ti m e, un co n scio u s o f th e n ature o f th e a ct an d this i s k n o w n to the d ef en d an t”); s ee al s o § 1 7 0 1 (1 ) ( p ro s c ri b in g s o d o m yw ith p e rs o n w h o “ b yre a s o n o f . . . im m a tu ri ty . . . does notoffe rr es i s t ance ”) , the abs ence of r es i s t ance bythe vi ct i m i s fat al t o a pr os ecut i on under§ 1701( 2) , the onl ypr ovi s i on thatconce rns us her e. 10 I n i t s r es i s t ance anal y s i s , the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on al s o found i ts i gni fi cantthat Suar ez “ di s r egar d[ed] ” A . B . ’ s s ubs equent“pl eas t o s t op. ” A pp. atF. W e do notthi nk thi s i s a fa i rchar act er i zat i on of the evi dence , how ever , even w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtT h e A p p e llate D iv isio n a lso su p p o rte d its a n a ly sis b ye m p h a siz in g th a t a c h ild v ictim 11 of s exual abus e nee d notexertthatthe s ame l evel of r es i s t ance thatw oul d be expe ct ed of a n a d u lt v ictim . W h ile w e a g re e w ith th e A p p e llate D iv isio n th a t th e re sis tan c e in q u iryis h i g h l y c o n t e x t - s p e c i f

i c a n d s h o u l d i n c l u d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e v i c t i m ’ s a g e a n d m a tu r i ty, the fa ctr emai ns thatthe r ecor d evi dence her e fa i l s t o demonstr at e thatA . B . offe r ed any r es i s t ance t o Suar ez’ s conduct . T o the ext entthatthe A ppel l at e D i vi s i on r el i ed on ca s es fr om otherj ur i s di ct i ons uphol di ng r ape c onvi ct i ons w her e the chi l d vi ct i m di d not aff i r m at i vel yr es i s tthe enc ount er , thos e ca s es i nvol ved ei theri nappos i t e fa ctual s cena r i os o r p ro s e c u tio n s u n d e r s ta tu te s w ith o u t r e s is ta n c e re q u ir e m e n ts . 13 m o st f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t. A .B . sim p lyre sp o n d e d y e s w h e n a sk e d b yS u a re z , in the fa ce of

r epea t ed r eques t s byS. S. thathe t ake hi s turn pl ay i ng the “t as t i ng game, ” w hethers he w ant ed t o s t op. Suar ez then pl ace d hi s peni s i n A . B . ’ s m outh tw o orthr ee mo r e t i me s wi th o u tme e t i n g a n yr e s i s t a n c e . Af t e rS u a r e z r e mo v e d h e rb l i n d f o l d , A. B. p r o mp t l yj o i n e d S . S . i n u r g i n g h i m t o t a k e h i s tu rn a tth e g a me . S u a r e z a n d th e two c h ild re n s w itc h e d ro le s a n d c o n tin u e d to p la yth e g a m e to g e th e r w ith o u t o b je c tio n . A gai n, w hi l e the s ad truth m aybe thatA . B . di d notr es i s tSuar ez’ s advanc es beca us e s he fai l ed t o ful l ycompre hend the natur e of hi s conduct , the j uryw as notperm i t t ed t o convi ct Suar ez unde r§ 1701( 2) w i thouts uffi ci entpr oof of r es i s t ance . B eca us e w e bel i eve that 11 the governm entfai l ed t o m eetthi s bur den her e, w e w i l l r ever s e Suar ez’ s fi r s t - degr ee r ape c o n v ic tio n u n d e r § 1 7 0 1 (2 ). V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m Suar ez’ s aggr avat ed r ape c onvi ct i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o hi s r i ghtt o r ai s e hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s i n a peti t i on t o the Su peri or C ou rtpu rs uan tt o V . I. C od e t i t . 5, §§ 13 01 -1325 . W e w i l l rever se14

hi s fi r s t - degr ee r ape c onvi ct i on and r emand w i th i ns truct i ons t o ent era j udgm entof acqui t t al on thatchar ge.