By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS
Tribune Staff Reporter
lmunnings@tribunemedia.net
THE Court of Appeal has upheld the convictions and prison sentences of Mark Anthony Rolle, ruling that the evidence of a single eyewitness was sufficient to support his convictions for armed robbery and kidnapping despite his claims that he had been wrongly identified.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Rolle's appeal against both his convictions and sentences, finding that the trial judge properly directed the jury on the dangers of mistaken identification and that the verdict was safe.
Mr Rolle was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and kidnapping in connection with the July 22, 2022 abduction of Coral Harbour Food Store owner Vashti Glinton. He was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment for armed robbery and six years for kidnapping, with the sentences to run concurrently.
His appeal challenged both the convictions and the sentence, arguing that the identification evidence was unreliable because Ms Glinton was the only witness to identify him, that there was no forensic or other independent evidence linking him to the crimes, that the police photo identification procedure was irregular, that his alibi defence had been undermined by the trial judge and that the 18-year sentence was manifestly excessive.
According to the judgment, Ms Glinton was opening her Coral Harbour business shortly after 6.25am on July 22, 2022 when she felt a gun pressed against her side. A gunman ordered her not to move before forcing her into her Ford F-150 truck, where another man drove the vehicle away.
During the ordeal, she handed over $700 in cash and was forced to write a cheque for $3,000 after her captors discovered she did not have an ATM card. She was later taken to a dirt road, bound with duct tape and abandoned in nearby bushes before eventually freeing herself and seeking help.
Police later arrested a woman who attempted to cash the cheque, and Mr Rolle was subsequently charged with the offences. Ms Glinton later identified him during a police photo lineup.
The appellate judges noted that although Ms Glinton was the only witness to identify Mr Rolle, the case was one of visual identification that had been properly left to the jury to assess.
The court found Ms Glinton had ample opportunity to observe her attacker during an ordeal lasting about an hour. It noted that she remained in close proximity to him, often face-to-face, in broad daylight, and consistently maintained that although he wore a cloth mask, it repeatedly slipped below his nose, allowing her to observe his facial features.
The judges also pointed to her detailed description of the gunman, including his clothing, hairstyle, eyes and what she described as a distinctive wide nose. During cross-examination, she maintained that she deliberately studied her attacker because she hoped to survive and later identify him.
The court said there was no evidence that her observations had been significantly obstructed and noted that she identified Mr Rolle in the photo lineup within minutes despite all participants wearing similar cloth masks.
Addressing Mr Rolle's complaint that there was no forensic or corroborating evidence, the Court of Appeal ruled that corroboration was not legally required in the circumstances. It said the trial judge had correctly instructed jurors on the burden and standard of proof, the dangers of mistaken identification and the absence of independent corroboration before leaving the issue of reliability to the jury.
The appellate court also rejected arguments that the trial judge failed to follow the well-known Turnbull guidelines governing visual identification evidence. Instead, it concluded that the jury received appropriate warnings about the possibility that an honest witness could still be mistaken and was directed to carefully consider factors such as lighting, distance, duration of the observation and the witness's opportunity to view the offender.
On sentencing, the court acknowledged that the trial judge had wrongly treated Mr Rolle's continued assertion of innocence and lack of remorse as aggravating factors. However, it concluded that this error did not affect the overall sentence because the seriousness of the offences, including the use of a firearm during the kidnapping and robbery, justified the 18-year prison term. .
Commenting has been disabled for this item.