The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed the 60-year sentence of a man who was convicted of robbing and killing a married couple in Grand Bahama five years ago.

In 2015, Devaughn “Short Man” Hall, Allen Alcime, Virgil Hall and Paul Bellizar hid in bushes armed with guns and face masks outside of the residence of Barry and Sheena Johnson, waiting for them to return home. When Mr Johnson arrived, the men accosted him before taking his truck keys and searching his vehicle. Before they fled in Mr Johnson’s truck, Hall shot him in the head at point blank range before turning and shooting his wife. The incident was captured on the couple’s home surveillance camera system.

Sometime later, the men were charged with two counts of murder and one count of armed robbery. During the trial, Alcime and Virgil Hall gave evidence for the prosecution. Devaughn Hall was later convicted of all charges and sentenced to 60 years imprisonment for each count of murder and 25 years for armed robbery.

He recently appealed his conviction on the grounds the “sentence passed was unduly severe”. He further argued the judge “erred in law” when she failed to give a warning in her summing up addressing the fact that Alcime and Virgil Hall, who both took plea deals to the arm robbery charge and testified against him so the murder charges could be dropped against them, were still his co-defendants, which meant anything they said about the armed robbery could not be used against him.

Nonetheless, Justices Jon Isaacs, Maureen Crane-Scott, and Milton Evans yesterday dismissed his appeal and affirmed his conviction and sentence.

In their judgement, delivered by Justice Isaacs, the panel concluded there was “no error in principle” committed by the judge when she sentenced Devaughn Hall.

“Accomplice evidence may be used by a jury to assist in arriving at a verdict where the accomplice has given evidence in the trial; and the co-accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine him. There is no authority or rule of law that says otherwise,” Justice Isaacs explained.

“The appellant’s complaint confuses the situation where defendants being tried together do not give evidence during the trial. In those circumstances any incriminating statements made by one defendant in the absence of the other is regarded as hearsay and cannot be used as evidence against the other defendant implicating him in the offence charged. This may be seen from section 39(2) of the Evidence Act.

“As it relates to sentencing, there was no error in principle committed by the judge when sentencing the appellant. She took both the sentence of death and the indeterminate sentence of life imprisonment off the table. She had regard to the circumstances of the offence and of the offender; and she arrived at sentences she deemed to be appropriate.

“Although the term of 60 years may seem to be of such length so as to deprive the appellant of an opportunity to return to the society, he is not altogether deprived of that hope.”