imposed was consistent with that of a class B misdemeanor is unconstitutional because maximum possible sentence, not sentence actually imposed, controls right to a jury trial). Id. at 357-59 (footnotes omitted). Here, Azille was charged with aggravated assault, which carries with it a one year maximum possible sentence. See 14 V.I.C. § 298(5). Accordingly, Azille was charged with a serious offense which guaranteed him a right to a jury trial. As we stated in Murrell, the Superior Court’s invocation of 14 V.I.C. § 4 did not transform that serious offense into a petty one, and therefore the Superior Court violated Azille’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Furthermore, as we found in Murrell, this error meets all of the requirements of plain error. See Murrell, 54 V.I. at 359-60 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we must reverse the conviction for
holding objection unnecessary where violation of rights guaranteed by fifth amendment is so improper and prejudicial as to amount to plain error effecting a defendants substantial rights recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings holding that constitutional error cannot be premised on error in a charge unless the error violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the fourteenth amendment holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that the error was plain based on binding constitutional doctrine and affected the defendants substantial rights by completely depriving him of his constitutionally guaranteed jury trial