NASSAU, BAHAMAS — After spending nearly 10 years in prison for armed robbery, Rolin Alexis will be set free via the direction of the Court of Appeal.
In its ruling handed down on Tuesday, Justice Milton Evans said: “In all circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that the interest of justice would be served by the making of an order for the retrial of the appellant in this matter.
“I would therefore order that an acquittal be entered in respect of the present charges and unless he is being detained for other matters, he should be released forthwith.”
Alexis was charged with two counts of armed robbery and two counts of attempted robbery in relation to an April 25, 2014 incident involving Bernard Dorsett.
At trial in May 2019, he was found guilty of two counts of armed robbery.
However, he was acquitted and discharged of the attempted robbery charges as the complainants for those charges did not appear at trial.
Alexis was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment less the six-year spent awaiting trial on remand.
He filed for an appeal in October 2020 on the grounds that the judge at trial failed to adequately analyze and direct the jury on the identification evidence; that some specific “illegality and or irregularity” substantially affected the merits of the case and the fairness of the trial; the learned judge erred in law and did not properly explain to the jury the relevance of the evidence related to the electronic monitoring device and ultimately the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
There was a positive identification by Dorsett’s younger brother, who was present when his older brother was robbed.
But evidence from an agent of the electronic monitoring company was that the device, which was functioning properly, did not place the appellant at the scene of the crime.
The margin for error on the EMD system is five-feet, the court heard.
“This was in stark contrast to the identification evidence from the witness which placed him on the scene,” read the ruling.
“The fatal error of the trial judge was her failure to draw this to the attention of the jury and to direct them that they had to resolve that conflict to reach a proper verdict.
“She instead exacerbated matters by misdirecting the jury in advising them that the EMD placed the appellant ‘on the scene around that time’ and later ‘which placed him right there on the scene at that time’.
Counsel for the Crown, Darnell Dorsette, contended that a retrial should be ordered in the interest of justice.
She said notwithstanding an apparent mistake made by police in showing a photo gallery to Dorsett and the failure of the learned trial judge to direct the jury to the same, the Crown’s case was otherwise “cogent, strong and credible” against Alexis.
But the appellate court said counsel for the Crown failed to address the issue of the electronic monitoring device — an issue the court said played a significant role in the decision to allow the appellant’s appeal.
The appellate court said counsel for the Crown also did not address in her submissions the allegation that the appellant had already served 115 of the 120 month-sentence, which had been imposed by the lower court.
“…The appellant having served considerable time in prison relative to this offence it cannot be said that if a retrial is not ordered he will escape being brought to justice merely because of some technical blunder by the judge in the conduct of the trial of her summing up to the jury,” read the ruling.
In conclusion, Justice Evans said: “In all the circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that the interest of justice would be served by making an order for the retrial of the appellant in this matter.
Attorney Stanley Rolle represented the appellant.
