NOT PRECEDENT IAL UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIRC UI T
N o. 09- 3283
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

v. MAUVILLE A. L AKE, Appe llant
On Appeal from

the Appellate D ivisio n of the D istri ct Co urt of the V ir ginI slands D istri ct Co urt N o. 3- 05- cr -0 0024 -0 01
Subm itted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A .R. 34.1(a)

May 3, 201 0 Befo re: SMITH, CHAGARES, an d J ORDAN, Circuit Judges

(F ile d: M ay

5, 201 0)
OPINION
SMI TH, Circuit Judge. On or a bout April 8, 2004 , Ma

uvill e A . L ake and L eburn Sm ith transpo rted E lvi s B urtonto ane m

pty apa rtm en t, a ssa

ult ed him , f or ce d hi m

to te le phon e
a n o th e r p e r s o n d e ma n d i n g t h e p r o du c t i o n o f c o c a i n e i n e x c h a n g e f

o r h i s f r e e d o m,2

tie d hi s hands an d f

ee t, w ra ppe d hi m in a she et , a nd l ef

t hi m in a ba tht

ub. B urton
es ca pe d and p ro m

ptl y not if ie d law e nf

or ce m en t auth or iti es . F ortui tou sly , Burt on la te r ha ppe ne d to se e the ve hic le in w hic h he ha d be entr an spor te d, a nd L ak e an d Sm ithw er e ap pr eh en de d. D ur ing the pol ic e inv es tig at ion , L ak e an d S m ithga ve statem ents to Detective Cle opatra Brooks. E ventuallyprosecutors filed an
am en de d in fo rm at ion , w hic h c ont ai ne d e igh te enc ount s, c ha rg ing L ak e an d S m ith wit h, int er

ali a , kidna

ppi ng f or r an som , f

al se im pr iso nm en t, f

ir st d eg re e as sault , fi rs t de gr ee r obbe ry , a nd u se of ada nge ro us w ea

pon, a ll of

fe nse s un de r V ir gin Is la nd s l aw. A t a j oin t tri al , Burt on t es tif

ie d a bout his or de al , a nd u ne qui voc al ly identified Lake and Sm ith as two of the perpetra tors. T he prosecution also called De tective Brooks and inq uired about th e contents of Sm ith’s statem ent, w hich im pli ca te d L ak e. A lth oughS m ith ’ s st at em en t ha d be enr ed ac te d by a gr ee m en t of the parties, when questio ned by the prosecution, Dete ctive Brooks began to read Sm ith ’ s un re da ct ed

sta te m en t, sta tin g L ak e’ s pr ope r na m e six ti m es a nd r el at ing tha t L ak e w as pr es en t w he n B urtone nte re d th e ve hic le
. Whe n th e pr ose cu tio n
as ke d w ha t L ak e an d B urtonta lke d a bout w hil e the y

w er e in the ve hic le , de fe nse
co unse l ob

j ec te d f or the f ir st t im e. T he obj ec tio n w as sus ta ine d a nd e ve ntu al ly D et ec tiv e Br ooks r ea d S m ith ’ s r ed ac te d st at em en t. I n a ddi tio n to r ea din g th e sta te m en t t o th e j ur

y , she te sti fi ed

about the c ir cu m stanc es und er

w hic h sh eThe Appe llate Division of the District Court of the Virg in I slands had jurisdiction 1 pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(a) and (d) . We exercise appe llate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(c ). B e c a us e L ake did

no t pr e se nt l e g a l argume nt o n th e oth e r i ssu e s, we ne e d n ot a dd re ss 2 them. See Laborers’ I

nt’l Union v. Foster W

heele r Corp. , 26 F.3d 375, 398 ( 3d Cir. 1994) (n oti ngthat “ [a]n

iss ue is w a ive d unle ss a

pa rt y ra ise s it in i ts o pe nin g br ie f, and

fo r t ho se purp os e s ‘ a

pa ssi ngre fe re nc e to a

n is su e . . . w ill no t su ff

ic e to b ri ngthat is su e be fo re thi s court’” ); see also Kost v. Kozakiewicz , 1 F.3d 176, 182 ( 3d Cir. 1993) (obser ving that an appellant’ s failure to present leg al ar g ument in support of an issue wa ives that issue on appe al and the c ourt of appe als nee d not addre ss it). 3 ob ta in edLake ’s st at em en t an d re adhi s s ta te m en t t o t he jury. Afte r th e p ro se cu ti on res te d, Sm it h d id no t t es ti fy . Lake d id , ho wev er. He adm itted that he was w ith Burton th e night Burton wa s assaulted and robb ed, that he tied Burton’ s hands in an attem pt to help Burton m ake it appear he wa s kidna ppe d, a nd tha t the re a ct

ua lly w as ate le phon e ca ll to anothe r pe rs on a bout drug s o r m on ey . The jury fou nd Lake gu il ty of th e o ffen se s ch arg ed
. Lake unsuccessfullyappealed to the Appellate D ivisio n of the District C ourt of the V ir ginI slands. T his ti m el y appe al f oll ow ed
. L ak e ide nti fi es thr ee iss ue s in

1 his “ Statem ent of Issues,” but presents legal argum ent on on ly his assertion th at the a dm iss ionof

aportio n of

S m ith ’ s un re da ct ed

sta te m en t vi ola te d hi s r igh ts unde r the Co nf

ro nta tio n C lause . B ec au se L ak e did not obj ec t t o D et ec tiv e 2 Br ooks ’ s te sti m ony

about S m ith ’ s un re da ct ed

sta te m en t tha t e xpr es sly in cri m in at edhi m , we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. U nit ed Sta tes v . O lan o , 507 U
. S. 725 , 733-36 (1993).4

W e agre e that D etective Br ooks ’ s testim ony rec iting the statem ent of Lake’ s nont estify ing co-defendant Sm ith, w hich refer red to him

by his proper
na m e an d di re ct ly

im pli ca te d hi m , vio la te d L ak e’ s r igh ts unde r the Co nf ro nta tio n Cl au se . U

nit ed Sta tes v . B rut on , 391 U. S. 123, 135-36 (19 68). T his was an ob vi ou s er ro r. N one the le ss, r el ie f is n ot w ar rante d un le ss L ak e can de m onstra te tha t this
erro r affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. O lan o , 5 0 7 U
. S
. a t7 3 4
. A s t h e S up r e me Court explained, this m eans in m ost cases “ that the error m ust have been prej udicial: it m

ust have affec ted the outcom e of the district court proceedings.” Id

. L ak e pla inl y

c an not sa tis fy thi s r equir em en t. B urton ’ s te sti m ony w as , by i t s e l f , d a mn i n g . M o r e o v e r , La k e ’s t e s t i mo n y confirmed not on ly that he wa s pr es en t duri ng the inc ide nt b ut a lso tha t he pa rt ic ipa te d by ty ing Burt on’ s hands t o g et h er . C o m

b i n ed , t h i s co n s t i tu t es o v er wh el m i n g ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt t h e ju ry’s
v e r d i c t
. Th e e rr o r

d i dn o ta f

f e c tLa k e ’s s ub s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . We wi l l , a c c o r d i n g l y, af fi rm the j udgm en t of

the D istri ct

Co urt.