## Facts

- Luis Carino and Norilys Richardson had cohabited in St. Croix for about eighteen months in a relationship marked by violence; they separated about two weeks before the incident.
- Richardson was outside a housing project speaking with a neighbor, Moises Carmona, when Carino and his cousin approached and an argument began.
- Richardson testified Carino struck her with a stick and then drew a gun and shot her three times, causing severe internal injuries and emergency surgery.
- Several eyewitnesses corroborated Richardson’s account of the shooting.
- After the shooting, Richardson begged for help; Carino assisted her only after she promised not to report him, and he then flagged down police.
- Carino told an officer they had been attacked by someone in a green army jacket; at the hospital Richardson told police Carino shot her.
- Carino testified Richardson struck first with a stick; he responded, then struggled with her for a gun she allegedly had reached for, and it was taken from her during the struggle.
- Carino sought to introduce evidence that Richardson had a prior voluntary manslaughter conviction to (a) show she was the aggressor, (b) impeach her, and (c) show his fear and state of mind supporting self-defense.
- The trial court excluded evidence of the manslaughter conviction; the jury convicted Carino of assault with intent to commit mayhem and possession of an unlicensed firearm.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s prior manslaughter conviction was admissible to show her violent character and that she was the aggressor in support of self-defense.
2. Whether the victim’s prior conviction could be used to impeach her credibility, and whether any limitation on impeachment warranted reversal.
3. Whether the victim’s prior conviction was admissible to show Carino’s state of mind and the reasonableness of his fear in support of self-defense.
4. If exclusion was erroneous for state-of-mind purposes, whether the error was harmless.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the trial court properly excluded the victim’s prior conviction when offered as proof of her violent character or that she acted as the aggressor.
- The court noted the prior conviction could have been used for impeachment; the government did not object to impeachment use, and Carino did not pursue it at trial.
- The court held the trial court erred in excluding the conviction for the limited purpose of showing Carino’s state of mind and fear relevant to self-defense.
- The court deemed the error harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and Carino conveyed to the jury that Richardson had previously killed a man.

## Legal Principles

- A victim’s specific prior crimes are generally inadmissible to prove violent character or to show conduct in conformity with that character (including that the victim was the aggressor); reputation or opinion evidence is the usual permissible form when character is at issue.
- A prior conviction may be admissible to impeach a witness’s credibility under ordinary impeachment rules; a defendant cannot claim reversible error where impeachment was available but not used.
- When a defendant knows of a victim’s prior violent acts or conviction, that knowledge may be admissible for the limited purpose of showing the defendant’s state of mind and the reasonableness of the defendant’s perceived need to act in self-defense, subject to prejudice balancing.
- Erroneous exclusion of relevant evidence does not require reversal if it did not substantially influence the verdict, particularly where similar information reached the jury through other testimony and the remaining proof of guilt is strong.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Carino’s convictions, holding that the victim’s manslaughter conviction was properly excluded as aggressor/character evidence, was available but unused for impeachment, and—although relevant to Carino’s state of mind—was harmlessly excluded given the strength of the government’s case and the jury’s exposure to the substance of the prior killing.


Gov’t of the V.I. v. Carino, 631 F.2d 226 (3d Cir. 1980)