Connor v. People, 2013 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 31

Connor was convicted after a one-day trial of four counts: first-degree robbery, using a dangerous weapon during robbery, grand larceny, and using a dangerous weapon during grand larceny.
The victim, Choute, identified Connor as the intruder who stole a laptop from his Hospital Ground residence.
Choute testified the laptop cost $486 (total with case $500); Connor had no viable alibi corroboration.
The court merged the grand larceny conviction with robbery and did not impose a separate sentence for it, and one assault-related count was acquitted.
On appeal, Connor raises sufficiency of evidence, double jeopardy/multiplicity, firearm as a weapon, verdict form value omission, and prosecutorial misconduct challenges.
The appellate court affirms, finding sufficient evidence, no double jeopardy violation, weapon defined as dangerous/deadly, and harmless error for the other claimed issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for identity and theft	Connor argues eyewitness unreliability voids identification.	Connor contends lack of corroborating alibi weakens guilt.	Evidence sufficient; single credible eyewitness identification supported conviction.
Double Jeopardy / multiplicity of robbery and weapon	People maintain separate punishments permitted by statute.	Connor asserts dual charges violate Blockburger and double jeopardy.	Legislative intent to impose multiple punishments upheld; no double jeopardy violation.
Firearm as dangerous weapon; jury instruction	Weapon charged as dangerous; court instructed deadly weapon.	No reversible error; firearm is deadly and dangerous.	Firearm qualifies as deadly/dangerous; instruction not error.
Verdict form lacking property value for grand larceny	Value must be stated per 5 V.I.C. § 3636.	Omission harmless given other evidence and merger.	Omission was plain error but did not prejudice substantial rights; no reversal for counts aside from remand to correct value issue as to grand larceny.
Prosecutorial misconduct on cross-examination	Question about mother’s promise implied improper evidence.	Harmless error given overwhelming evidence of guilt.	Harmless error; conviction affirmed.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Soto, 718 F.2d 72 (3d Cir. 1983) (clear legislative intent to authorize cumulative punishment under §2251(a)(2)(B))
Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Robinson, 29 F.3d 878 (3d Cir. 1994) (definition of deadly weapon includes firearms as deadly and dangerous)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (describes legislative intent in imposing multiple punishments)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for multiplicity and whether elements are distinct)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (requires juries to determine facts that affect penalties)
Ward v. People, 58 V.I. 277 (V.I. 2013) (section 104 interaction with §2251; plain error standard)
Christopher v. People, 57 V.I. 500 (V.I. 2012) (interchange of 'deadly' and 'dangerous' not reversible error)
Gumbs v. Gov’t of the Virgin Islands, 426 F. App’x 90 (3d Cir. 2011) (Confrontation Clause; authentication of firearm records)