Case Caption: Moses vs. People of the VICase Number: SCT-CRIM-2024-0035Date: 03/04/2026Author: Cabret, Maria M. Citation: 2026 VI 2 Summary: Appellant appeals from the Superior Court’s order finding her in contempt of court, revoking her probation, and sentencing her to the remainder of her suspended sentence. The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed. The defendant was denied due process because the Superior Court’s order failed to (1) identify the type of hearing being conducted, (2) specify the alleged violations that formed the basis for the hearing, and (3) afford sufficient time to prepare a defense. Due process in parole revocation proceedings requires: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a "neutral and detached" hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.

In the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 32.1 also sets out requirements for conducting a parole revocation hearing. In the case at bar, Moses was not provided with notice that apprised her of the hearing or that would have allowed her to adequately prepare for it. In addition to notice of the nature of the proceedings, an individual also has a due process right to notice of the charges against them. In the case at bar, the Superior Court failed either to state the facts constituting the alleged contempt and designate the contemptuous conduct as criminal—as would be required if the proceedings were for criminal contempt—or to specify which condition of probation Moses was alleged to have violated—if the proceedings were for revocation. In addition to failing to provide Moses with notice of the type of hearing that would be conducted and the charges she would face at that hearing, the Superior Court’s order did not give Moses sufficient time to prepare. As a result, the notice given to Moses was defective and deprived her of due process. Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court holding her in contempt and revoking her probation is reversed, her sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to reinstate Moses’ probationAttachment: Open Document or Opinion