The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed the 25-year sentence of a man who was convicted of the manslaughter of a woman who was shot and killed during an attempted robbery over a decade ago.

In 2009, Valentino Dorsette and two other men attempted to use a 9mm firearm to rob Tagia Soles-Armony of a white Honda Accord while she was sitting outside her mother’s home in Sea Breeze Estates.

The deceased, who lived with her husband in St Kitts and Nevis, was in Nassau to visit her family and to introduce her infant to her relatives. During the course of the attempted armed robbery, Soles-Armony was shot when she refused to open her car door.

She later died from the gunshot wound, which led to Dorsette being charged with murder and attempted armed robbery.

Six years later, Dorsette was found guilty of manslaughter and attempted armed robbery and sentenced to 25 years for the manslaughter conviction and 15 years for the attempted armed robbery charge. Both of the sentences were ordered to run concurrently from the date of his conviction.

Dorsette recently applied for an extension of time within which to appeal his conviction and sentence on the grounds that “prejudicial evidence made by (a) prosecution witness at trial resulted in an unfair trial.” He also argued the trial judge failed to point out evidence that could “undermine (the) reliability of the confession”.

However, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Roy Jones and Carolita Bethell denied his appeal after ruling that there was “no lurking doubt” as it related to the safety of his conviction.

In his judgement, Justice Jones said he believed Dorsette’s counsel did not provide “any reasons” for the appellate court to “interfere with the sentencing discretion of the trial judge”.

“The directions by the trial judge to the jury during the trial and summing up were adequate to remind them of their duty to decide the case on relevant evidence alone,” he said.

“Furthermore, the case against the intended appellant, including his confession and possession of the LG Cookie cellphone, was a compelling one. The judge... explained to the jury that the truth as to whether the confession was made and whether it was true was a matter for them to decide as the finders of the facts. He also directed them that it was for them to determine whether the confession was or may have been obtained by force or oppression. This was a proper direction. Accordingly, we have no lurking doubt as to the safety of the conviction.”

In his concurring view, Sir Michael said while he agreed with the decision of Justice Jones, his view on ground two of Dorsette’s appeal was “slightly different”, so he prepared a “short judgment” to outline it.

“The judge’s statement that ‘there’s no allegation that the defendant was beaten to make these oral or written statements on the 12th of August 2009’ was in my judgment not fair to the appellant as he clearly had given evidence that he was beaten from the beginning of his questioning by the police officers,” he noted.

“The direction in my view should have been more balanced. Having said that, I have no doubt that if the judge had given the more balanced direction as I have suggested, the jury would still have convicted him. His allegations of beatings were not supported by any other evidence and contradicted by his aunt’s testimony. I have no doubt of the safety of the conviction and would have applied the proviso in any event.”