People of the VI v. Jacques Cajuste & Viviane Stuart

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: December 30, 2020
• Docket: ST-2019-CR-216 & ST-2019-CR-217
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) CASE NO ST 2019 CR 00216 ) Plaintiff ) 14 V I C §§ 921 922(a)(l) l 1(a) vs ) 14 V I C §§ 2251(a)(2)(B) 11(a) (4 counts) ) l4VIC §§ 295(1) 11(a) JACQUES CAJUSTE ) 14 V I C §§ 297(a)(2) l 1(a) ) l4VIC §§ 921 922(b) 11(a) Defendant ) ) PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) CASE NO ST 2019 CR 00217 ) ) Plaintiff 14 VIC §§ 921 922(a)(l) 11(a) VS ) 14 V I C §§ 2251(a)(2)(B) l 1(a) (4 Counts) ) 14V I C §§ 295(1) 11(a) VIVIANE STUART a/k/a VIVIANE AIS ) 14 V I C §§ 297(a)(2) 1 1(a) ) l4VIC §§ 921 922(1)) 11(a) ) 14 V I C §§55|(1)(2 counts) Defendant )

Cite as 2020 VI Super 107U

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

1]] Pending before the Court are

1 Defendant Jacques Cajuste’s Motion to Dismiss the Information' (“Motion to Dismiss”) which was filed on December 30, 2019;

2 Response to Defendant Cajuste’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six and Eight of the Information and Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Seven of the Information, which was filed on February 14, 2020 and

3 Defendant Jacques Cajuste 5 Reply to the People’s Response to his Motion to Dismiss Counts Two through 6 and 8 of the Information, which was filed on April 15, 2020

I The title to Cajuste 3 Motion is a misnomer While the title implies that the entire Information should be dismissed as to Cajuste, the Motion focuses on dismissal of the “non murder felony charges" arguing, Inter aha, that they were filed after expiration of the applicable statute of limitations In addition the first paragraph of the Motion to Dismiss states ‘Counts One through Six and Eight of the Information against Mr Cajuste all suffer from various fatal deficiencies ” Counts One and Seven are the subject of Defendant Jacques Cajuste’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Seven of the Information which was filed on January 10 2020 People ofthe Virgm Islands v Jacques Cajuste 2020 V1 Super 107U Case No ST 2019 CR 00216 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Vlvume Stuart a/k/a Viviane AIS Case No ST 2019 CR 00217 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 2 of 7

I BACKGROUND

([2 This case stems from the murder of Egbert Stuart ( Egbert ), which occurred sometime during the night of June 21 and the early morning hours of June 22, 2005 At the time of his death, Stuart was married to co Defendant Viviane Stuart (“Stuart’)

‘3 On April 2, 2019, Detective Sergeant Mario Stout, supervisor of the Major Crimes Unit of the Virgin Islands Police Department (‘ VIPD ), was assigned as a case agent in the investigation of Egbert s murder Sergeant Stout stated that on March 4, 2015 the homicide of Egbert was assigned to the Cold Case Squad for follow up investigation The investigation revealed that on June 30, 2005, CO Defendant Jacques Cajuste (“Cajuste”) was interviewed and stated that he and Stuart were co workers involved in a sexual relationship Sometime at the end of July or during August 2005, Cajuste moved to Pottstown, Pennsylvania In June and August of 2006, witnesses were interviewed about the murder of Egbert Almost ten years later, DNA analysis concluded that Cajuste was a ‘ major contributor of DNA found in the hallway and west bedroom of the home in which [Egbert] was killed ’

114 Both Cajuste and Stuart were charged with participating in the death of Egbert, who died from multiple stab wounds On September 25, 2019, the People filed an Information charging Cajuste with (1) First Degree Murder in violation of 14 V I C §§ 921 922(a)(l) 14 V I C § 1 1(a), (2) Using a Dangerous Weapon During the Commission of a First Degree Murder in violation of 14 V I C 2251(a)(2)(B) and 14 V I C § 1 1(a) (3) First Degree Assault in violation of 14 V I C § 295(1) and 14 V I C § 1 1(a) (4) Using a Dangerous Weapon During the Commission of a First Degree Assault in violation of 14 V I C 2251(a)(2)64(B) and 14 V I C § 1 1(a) (5) Third Degree Assault in violation of 14 V I C § 297(a)(2) and 14 V I C § 1 1(a) (6) Using a Dangerous Weapon During the Commission of a Third Degree Assault in violation of 14 V I C 2251(a)(2)(B) and 14 V I C § 1 1(a) (7) Second Degree Murder in violation 0f 14 V I C §§ 921 922(a)(1) and § 1 1(a), and (8) Using a Dangerous Weapon During the Commission of a Second Degree Murder Aiding and Abetting in violation of 14 V I C 2251(a)(2)(B) and 14 V I C § 1 1(a)

1|5 On December 30, 2019, Cajuste filed the instant Motion to dismiss Counts Two through Six and Eight of the Information pursuant to Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)

II LEGAL STANDARD

116 V I R CRIM P 12(b)(3) provides in pertinent part that the following must be raised before trial

(A) a motion alleging a defect in instituting the prosecution including

2 Stout Aff 1| 64 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jacques Cajuste 2020 V1 Super lO7U Case No ST 2019 CR 00216 People ofthe Virgin Islands v V1vume Stuart a/k/a Vnmme A15 Case No ST 2019 CR 00217 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 3 of 7

(ii) pre information delay

(B) a motion alleging a defect in the information, such as (i) joining two or more offenses in the same count (duplicity); (ii) charging the same offense in more than one count (multiplicity)

III ANALYSIS

117 On November 6 2019, the People filed their Motion to Amend Information, arguing that they intended to charge both Defendants with conspiracy but mistakenly included two charges of conspiracy for Stuart The People fithher argue that in accordance with V I R CRIM P 3(d), the amendment here does not include an additional or different charge On February 14, 2020, the People filed their Second Motion to Amend Information The People seek to designate the correct count in the wording of the charge for using a dangerous weapon during a crime of violence in counts 2, 4, 6, 8 10 12, 14, and 16 of the Information Because neither of the People 8 Motions to Amend the Information do alters the Court 3 analysis, the merits of Cajuste’s Motion to Dismiss will be addressed

A The Court finds that certain charges were untimely filed

{[8 Cajuste moves to dismiss Counts Two through Six and Eight of the Information pursuant to V I R Crim P 12(b)(3)(A)(ii) Cajuste specifically argues that the three year statute of limitations for these non murder felony charges ’ elapsed under V I CODE ANN tit 5, § 3S4l(a)(2) 3 While it is undisputed that Counts Two Through Six and Eight are outside of the limitations period as provided in § 354l(a)(2), the Pe0p1e rely on the exceptions in § 3541(b) and (c) to argue that the statute of limitations is inapplicable ‘

'|9 5 V I C § 3541 provides

(a) A criminal action shall be commenced within the following periods (1) For murder, felony child abuse, felony child neglect, any felony sexual offense perpetrated against a victim, embezzlement of public moneys, and the falsification of public records, there is no limitation of the time within which a prosecution shall be commenced (2) For any felony other than specified above, action shall be commenced with three years after its commission (3) For any misdemeanor, action shall be commenced within one year after its commission (b) If the defendant is out of the Virgin Islands when the offense is committed, the information may be filed within the term herein limited after his coming

3 Def Jacques Cajuste s Mot to Dismiss the Info 2 4 Resp to Def Cajste s Mot to Dismiss Counts One Through Six and Eight of the Info And Mot to Dismiss counts One and Seven of the Info 3 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jacques Cajuste 2020 V1 Super 107U Case No ST 2019 CR 00216 People ofthe Vugm Islands v Vwmne Stuart a/k/a Viviane A’s Case No ST 2019 CR 00217 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 4 of 7

within the Virgin Islands, and no time during which the defendant is not an inhabitant of, or usually resident within, the Virgin Islands is a part of the limitation (c) Nothing in this section extends to persons fleeing from justice 5

'10 Cajuste argues that subsection (b) is not applicable because [t]he People allege the crimes alleged against Mr Cajuste took place in the Virgin Islands while he was in the Territory ”6 In other words Cajuste argues that the alleged crime was committed while he was in the Virgin Islands ’ The People refine this argument stating that “if [Cajuste] is alleged to have committed the crime in the Virgin Islands [then] it is impossible for [Cajuste] to be out of the Virgin Islands when the crime is committed ”8 The People further aver that “such an interpretation of this clause would lead to absurd results ”9

1:1 1 The People further aver that “it is rare for anyone to commit a crime and not be in the place at the same time the crime is committed “’ In his Reply, Cajuste rebuts this argument by stating that a person may be an aider and abettor to an armed robbery if he or she is outside the territory and shipped the firearm or other weapon to the actual perpetrator in the Virgin Islands prior to the actual crime

1|12 The parties rely on the ruling in People v ( ummmgs “ Cajuste argues that Cummings is not applicable to this matter because the Court only relied on the second half of subsection § 3541(b), i e ‘and no time during which the defendant is not an inhabitant of, or usually resident within, the Virgin Islands is part of the limitation” without relying on the entire subsection P The People also argue that it would be absurd for the Court to interpret the statute in this manner n The People also argue, without any legal support, that Cummings interpreted the statute of limitations to mean “after the crime is committed ”'4 1113 Cummings interpreted the portion of the statute that reads, and no time during which the defendant is not an inhabitant of, or usually resident within, the Virgin Islands is part of the limitation ’ to mean that the “the statute of limitations tolls if and for as long as defendant moves out of the territory "5 Cummings narrowly reads the latter half of subsection (b) to be separate

5 5 V I C § 3541 6 Def Jacques Cajuste s Mot to Dismiss the Info 2 7 Id 3 Resp to Def Cajuste s Mot to Dismiss Counts One Through Six and Eight of the Info And Mot to Dismiss counts One and Seven of the Info 4 9 Id 10 Id

” Super Ct Civ No ST 15 CR 210 2016 WL 2859362 at *2 (VI Super Ct May 9 2016) " Def Jacques Cajuste s Mot to Dismiss the Info 3 '3 we must give effect to all the words and provisions of a statute by considering the plain language in light of any statutory definitions '4 Id 4 5 '5 Cummings 2016 WL 2859362 at ’2 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jacques Cajuste 2020 V1 Super 107U Case No ST 2019 CR 00216 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Vivmne Stuart a/k/a Viviana Ats Case No ST 2019 CR 00217 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 5 of 7

from the first part ofthe subsection, stating that it ‘ constitutes a complete, complementary thought, as well as a complete sentence '° '|14 “‘The starting point in interpreting a statute is its language, for if the intent of [the Legislature] is clear, that is the end of the matter ’ ‘7 “‘[I]n construing a statute, if the intent of the Legislature is clear, that is the end of the matter ”"8

1|15 This Court finds that the interpretation used in Cummings is not applicable to this matter In the instant case, it is clear subsection (b) is interpreted to mean that if the Defendant is out of the Virgin Islands when the offense is committed then (a) the Information may be filed within three (3) years after his coming to the Virgin Islands and (b) the time which the Defendant was not a resident of the Virgin Islands should not be considered in the 3 years '9 'll6 Nothing has been presented by either party to indicate that Cajuste was not on St Thomas at the time of Egbert s homicide Thus subsection (b) is not an applicable exception here

B Cajuste was not fleeing from justice

‘117 Next, the People argue that the statute of limitation is also tolled under subsection (c) fleeing from justice 2" Cajuste argues that he did not flee from justice but rather, he has always lived between New York, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands 2‘ Cajuste further avers that “there is no evidence that he lived in hiding, altered his name or appearance, or that prior to the issuance of his arrest warrant in August of 2016, that there was any reason for him to believe he was wanted for purposes of arrest and prosecution in the Virgin Islands for this case or any other case ”22 The People argue that it is evident that Cajuste was fleeing from justice because he left the Virgin

‘6 Section 3541(b), which is based on the [92] codes, was not drafted artfully As a matter of pure syntax, it is possible to construe the Section such that the out of territory tolling is modified by the conditional phrase If the defendant is out of the Virgin Islands when the offense is committed " However, the Court does not adopt this construction because the hard comma and the “and ’ before ‘ no time” suggest that the conditional phrase only modifies the clause that immediately follows it (i e the information may be filed within the term herein limited after his coming within the Virgin Islands ) and not the rest of the subsection which constitutes a complete, complementary thought, as well as a complete sentence [Government ofthe Virgin Islands v Moncayo Civ No 1993 0099 1994 WL 594702 at *5 (D V 1 Aug 25 1993)] accords with this construction Moreover a holding to the effect that the statute of limitations tolls when a defendant leaves the territory only if the defendant also began the statutory period outside the territory is too strange a policy preference for the Court to impute to the Legislature from this text alone Cummings, 2016 WL 2859362 at *2 n 8 '7 Miller v Virgin Islands 54 V I 398 403 (V I 2010) (quoting Scheidemann v [NS 83 F 3d 1517 1519 (3d Cir 1996 '3 Id (qu2ting In re Infant Sherman 49 V I 452 456 (V I 2008)) '9 Cornelius v Bank ofNova Scotla, 67 V I 806, 822 (V I 2017) ( ‘we must give effect to all the words and provisions of a statute by considering the plain language in light of any statutory definitions[ ] ) (emphasis added) ’0 Resp to Def Cajste s Mot to Dismiss Counts One Through Six and Eight of the Info And Mot to Dismiss counts One and Seven of the Info 5 " Def Jacques Cajuste s Mot to Dismiss the Info 4 5 17 [d People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jacques Cajuste 2020 VI Super 107U Case No ST 2019 CR 00216 People of the Virgin Islands v Vivmne Stuart a/k/a Viviane A15 Case No ST 2019 CR 00217 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 6 of 7

Islands only two months after the murder and never returned 23 The People also argue that Cajuste left his residence, job, lover, P O Box among other things and never returned ”24

1118 The only Virgin Islands case that discusses ‘ fleeing from justice as a toll to the statute of limitations is Moncayo 25 The Court in Moncayo held that a defendant who fled the Virgin Islands the day after committing an assault was clearly fleeing from justice 26 Thus, the statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to § 3541(c) 27 1119 Furthermore, 18 U S C § 3290, which is the exception to the federal criminal statutes of limitations, provides No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice ” Case law on the interpretation of fleeing from justice is liberally construed Courts have found evidence sufficient to establish flight from justice within the confines of this view where, after committing the offense, the accused has left the country28 or has been aware of an outstanding warrant against him or her, yet has continued to conceal himself 29 Furthermore, the government's failure to find the accused despite a diligent attempt to do so is an additional factor persuasive to some courts in establishing flight from justice 3° 1120 Conversely, the ‘fleeing from justice' exception does not apply where the accused innocently and openly moves to a new residence while remaining easily accessible to any careful law enforcement officer who has a warrant to serve 3'

1121 Here, the Court finds that Cajuste was not fleeing from justice 32 Cajuste states that he moved to Pennsylvania and remained there until his arrest in 2016 33 The People fail to provide evidence that Cajuste was inaccessible to law enforcement 3‘ Outside of the one interview in June of 2005, the People fail to provide evidence that they attempted to interview Cajuste again 35

’3 Resp to Def Cajste s Mot to Dismiss Counts One Through Six and Eight of the Info And Mot to Dismiss counts One and Seven of the Info 4 5 ’4 Id at 5 25 I994 WL 594702 at *1 ’6 Id at *5 ’7 Id ’3 Greene v US 154 F 401 (C C A 5th Cir 1907) (wherein the accused fled to Canada) Martin v U S 339 F Supp 1187 (S D N Y 1972) (wherein the accused fled to Belize) 21 Am Jur 2d Criminal Law § 260 2° 21 Am Jur 2d Criminal Law § 260 3° Id US v Wa ney 529 F 2d 1287 33 A L R Fed 710 (9th Cir 1976) ll [d

3 5 V I C § 3541(c) 3’ Def Jacques Cajuste s Mot to Dismiss the Info 5 3‘ U S v Duflf 931 F Supp 1306 (E D Va 1996) ( fleeing from justice requires the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knows charges against him were pending and actively concealed himself with intent to avoid arrest or prosecution, and the defendants mere absence the prosecution jurisdiction is insufficient ) Greene [54 F 401' Wa ney 529 F 2d [287 “ Stout Aff 1! 25 30 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jacques Cajuste 2020 VI Super 107U Case No ST 2019 CR 00216 People ofthe Virgin Islands v unme Stuart a/k/a Vtwane Ans Case No ST 2019 CR 00217 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 7 of 7

Further, the People do not present any evidence that they attempted to locate or arrest Cajuste in the years prior to his arrest in 2016 3" 1122 The People failed to present the Court with sufficient evidence to prove that Cajuste was fleeing from justice pursuant to 5 V I C § 354l(c) Thus, the Court finds that subsection (c) is inapplicable ‘

IV CONCLUSION

1|23 The Court finds that Counts Two through Six and Eight of the Information are barred by the statue of limitations The Court also finds that § 3541(b), when read in its entirety, cannot be applied in this matter and § 3541(c) is also inapplicable because Cajuste was not fleeing from justice Furthermore, the Court having found that this matter is barred by the statute of limitations it need not address the parties remaining arguments Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant Jacques Cajuste’s Motion to Dismiss the Information, which was filed on December 30 2019 is GRANTED to the extent that Counts 2 through 6 and 8 0f the Information are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be directed to counsel of record

DATED 12. I sol 2020 DENISE M F NCOIS Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands

ATTEST

TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court

BY fig“Jr“ . M ‘or LORI BOYNES Chief Deputy Clerk / / i /.202/

3‘ See generally Stout Aff ‘ Resp to Def Cajste s Mot to Dismiss Counts One Through Six and Eight of the Info And Mot to Dismiss counts One and Seven of the Info