GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
v.
THOMAS A. LAWRENCE, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and jury charge were not prejudicial error, and the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.
The defendant was convicted of armed robbery following a jury verdict. He appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings, the jury charge, and the sufficie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury Charge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, pursuant to a jury verdict finding the defendant appellant, Thomas A. Lawrence, guilty of armed robbery in violation of 14 V.I.C. Secs. 11 and 1861.
On this appeal Lawrence challenges as prejudicial error several of the trial judge’s rulings on the admission of evidence and his discussion of that evidence in the course of his charge to the jury. He also contends that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that an acquittal should be directed.
On review of the record we are of the opinion that the challenges to the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings and charge are without merit.
We are further of the opinion that there is no merit to the contention that they jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The evidence adduced at the trial was more than adequate to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty.
For the reasons stated the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walsh v. Picard, 446 F.2d 1209 (1st Cir. 1971)
-
Joseph v. Fair, 763 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1985)