Court of Appeal
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1987
13th March, 1987
SIR JAMES SMITH P.
SIR ALBERT STAINE J.A.
KENNETH G. SMITH J.A.

The Appellant in person

Mr. T. J. Gonzalez for the Crown

Court of Appeal - Appeal against conviction for theft - Whether decision unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence - Whether trial unfair - Accused not given opportunity to crosss-examine in some circumstances - Sufficient evidence to convict - Appeal dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

The Appellant was arraigned at the Criminal Sessions of the Central District which commenced in Belize City in January 1987. He was tried on an Indictment which contained two counts, one of Theft and in the alternative the second count charged him with Handling Stolen goods to the value of $43,393.40. He pleaded not guilty to both counts, and at the conclusion of the trial he was convicted of Theft, and sentenced to four years imprisonment.

He appealed against his conviction and sentence, but in setting down the grounds of his appeal, no matter was urged in relation to the sentence, and in arguing his appeal before us, he dealt only with matters concerning his conviction.

Four grounds of appeal were set down, and, as laid, they were:

(1) The decision was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence;

(2) The Jurors was misdirected by the evidence presented;
(3) The learned trial judge was misdirected by the prosecutor;
(4) I do believe that I got an unfair trial.

At the hearing of this appeal the Appellant submitted that the colour of the van was said by most witnesses to be blue. These witnesses included Adrian Roe, the receptionist at Baron's Hotel, Antonio Castillo. But when the Court viewed the van, the colour turned out to be white.

Then the witness Allan Arnold said he gave a statement in Orange Walk in order to be released by the Police. The Appellant then submitted that he the Appellant went on an Identification Parade and Arnold was present and pointed him out. But continued the Appellant, he was handcuffed, and by this we understand him to mean he was easily Identifiable.

Continuing, the Appellant emphatically denied coming to Belize City. He was at all material times in Orange Walk Town where he lived. He repeated his assertion that he did not come to Belize City with Gilbert Staine. Nor did he know Erla Staine or where she lived. Neither did he go to her house; nor to any place from her house. According to the Appellant, her story was a complete fabrication.

The Appellant's story was that the Police went to his house in Orange Walk Town. Then the Police went back to his house and brought his girl to the Police Station. Then Corporal Logan brought him to Belize City on the 25th, and on the 27th he was put on an Identification Parade. He was along with eight other men, but as he continued to stress, he was wearing handcuffs, and the suggestion arising from that was he could easily be picked out. In fact a young lady picked him out, and that young lady turned out to be Gilbert Staine's sister. She had said she saw him in the van, but the Appellant said he did not know these people as he called them. The witness Rosado had said (p. 16) that it was Allan Arnold who had come to sell him cigarettes.

Mr. Gonzalez confined himself to dealing with the witnesses who were not accomplices, and whose evidence was corroborated and on which evidence the accused could be convicted. These were Erla Staine whose evidence could be considered as corroborating Allan Arnold who was clearly an accomplice. Then there was Stephen Meigban who had seen the Appellant at a club that night. Finally there was the fingerprint evidence given by Inspector George Heusner. This was evidence which, if accepted, went towards convicting the Appellant.

The Appellant has complained that he had an unfair trial. There were certainly some questions asked by the judge or prosecution in circumstances in which the accused was not given an opportunity of cross examination. However, we are of the opinion that these were not strictly necessary and that there was evidence on which he could have been convicted. We therefore do not consider there has been a miscarriage of justice and dismiss the appeal.

----------OO----------