The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

A MAN convicted of robbing and killing a married couple in Grand Bahama five years ago has launched an appeal against his 60-year conviction.

Devaughn “Short Man” Hall is seeking to challenge the sentence imposed on him for murdering Barry and Sheena Johnson at the couple’s Deadman’s Reef residence on September 12, 2015.

The Johnsons were shot to death by four masked men armed with firearms in their triplex apartment that evening. The couple was also robbed of their GMC truck and a set of keys valued at $8,000.

At the trial, the appellant and two others were charged with two counts of murder and armed robbery. The trial commenced in September 2017 and concluded in May 2018 with a unanimous verdict of guilty against Hall on all charges.

Four months later, he was sentenced to 60 years on each count of murder and 25 years on remand for the offence of armed robbery. All of the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

During a virtual hearing before Justices Milton Evans, Jon Isaacs and Maureen Crane-Scott, Hall’s attorney, public defender Stanley Rolle, told the panel the judge’s decision not to discharge two of the jurors in view of the circumstances of the case was “unreasonable”.

Mr Rolle said during the trial, the defence counsel for one of Hall’s co-accused complained that a jury member was seen speaking to a witness for the prosecution during the course of trial.

He said after the judge made an inquiry of the matter and counsel for all of the accused were given an opportunity to question the juror, the court ruled it was not persuaded the independence of that juror had been compromised.

Mr Rolle said his client was of the view the judge did not “make all the necessary inquiries” she needed to before “exercising that judicial discretion”.

“In the record prosecuting counsel and defence counsel had indicated to the court that the witness had said he did not have a conversation with the juror. The juror admitted that there was a conversation and the witness said in effect it never happened,” he said.

“And so, there was a contradiction between the two that we say was not resolved in such a way that the court could be satisfied or persuaded that the independence of the juror had not been compromised.”

Mr Rolle said the trial judge should have “made a full inquiry by asking the witness, ‘Did you have a conversation with this person?’ He said because this was not done, the judge “did not go far enough” to resolve the alleged conflict.

Mr Rolle also argued the judge erred in law when she allowed the trial to stop for more than two consecutive weeks.

He said the court proceedings were adjourned on December 13, 2017 and resumed on January 23, 2018, because of “several reasons”, including the Christmas holiday and the fact the jurors and respective lawyers had prior engagements.

He noted that up to the adjournment date, a total of 25 prosecution witnesses had completed giving evidence and the final witness had stood in the witness box. He also stated the cross-examinations had been “extremely broad and lengthy” since the evidence was “voluminous”.

Mr Rolle said when the trial resumed on January 15, the accused were not present, so the matter was further adjourned to January 23, which meant the jurors “remained separated for approximately six weeks”.

Mr Rolle said in view of this fact, his client was relying on the case of Smith vs Regina which noted that “in order to succeed in overturning a conviction on the basis of a break in the trial, it would be necessary to show that the break was inordinate, that there was prejudice to the appellant as a result and that this irregularity substantively affected the merits of the case”.

“We say that in this case, having regard to the management of the way (one of the) defence counsels dealt with the case, there was lots and lots of irrelevant evidence,” he continued.

“We also say that in this case, the credibility of (a few) witnesses were an issue. Such were matters not to be compounded by the obvious tax on memory and recollection which such an interval of time inevitably imposed.”

Attorney Neil Brathwaite represents the Crown in the matter, whose position is that the 60-year sentence imposed on Hall was appropriate and proportionate given the circumstances.

The prosecution’s case also asserts that Hall was the “principal offender” who conspired with his co-accused to rob the Johnsons with firearms. They further argue that the appellant was the one who shot and killed the couple during the course of the robbery, before he and the rest of his co-accused fled the scene.

The Crown contends that there was no justification for the shooting and that the parties of the crime intended to cause the death of the deceased pair.