IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS SK 2021 CR 073
Plaintiff,
vs
TA JHANIQUE CUMBERBATCH
Defendant
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS SX 2021 CR 075
Plaintiff,
vs
SHARIF MATTHEW
Defendant
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS SX 2021 CR 214
Plaintiff,
vs
SHARIF MATTHEW
Defendant
CITE AS 2023 VI SUPER 1
Appearances
Patricia Pryor, Esq
Virgin Islands Department of Justice
St Croix, U S Virgin Islands
For the People ofthe Vzrgm Islands
Howard Phillips, Esq
Andrew C Simpson, P C
St Croix U S Virgin Islands
For Sharszatthew
Scott Burton, Esq '
Dudley Newman Feuerzeig
St Croix, U S Virgin Islands
For Ta Jhamque Cumberbatch
' On December 22 2022, an order was entered appomting Scott Burton Esq as counsel of record for Defendant
Ta Jhanique Cumberbatch
People ofthe V] v Cumberbatch
People ofthe V! 1 Matthew
People ofthe V I v Matthew
SX 2021 CR 073 SX 2021 CR 075 SX 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 2 of 12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLOCKS, Senior Sitting Judge
1[ 1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on the People of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter
People ’) motion to consolidate the following cases People ofthe VJ v Cumberbatch (Case No
SX 2021 CR 073) People ofthe V I v Matthew (Case No SX 2021 CR 075) and People ofthe
VI v Matthew(Case No sx 2021 CR 214) 2
BACKGROUND
1] 2 On March 10, 2021, the People filed an information against Defendant Ta’jhanique
Cumberbatch (hereinafter ‘ Cumberbatch ) based on the events that allegedly took place in March
2021 as set forth in the affidavit of Police Detective Aisha Jules of the Virgin Islands Police
Department (hereinafter “Detective Jules ), dated March 10, 2021 The information charged
Cumberbatch with the following counts in Case No SX 2021 CR 073 Count I murder in the first
degree in violation of Title 14 V I C § 922(a)(1) Count II murder in the first degree in violation
of Title 14 V I ( § 922(a)(2) Count 111 assault in the first degree in violation of Title 14 V I C
§ 295(1) Count 1V assault in the third degree in violation of Title 14 V I C § 297(a)(2) (3) &
(4); Count V unauthorized possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of Title
14 V I C § 2553(a), Count VI unauthorized possession of a firearm in vehicle, in violation of Title
14 V I C § 2553(e) Count VII discharging or aiming firearms, in violation of Title 23 V I C §
479(a) Count VIII possession of ammunition in violation of Title 14 V I C § 2256(3); and Count
[X conspiracy in violation of Title 14 V I C § 551(1)
° For clarity the Court will address the cases by their respective case numbers
People ofthe V I l Cumberbatch
People oflhe V I v Matthew
People ofthe V] v Matthew
SX 2021 CR 073 SX 2021 CR 075 SX 202] CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 3 of 12
11 3 On March 12, 2021, the People filed an information against Defendant Sharif Matthew
(hereinafier ‘ Matthew ’) based on the events that allegedly took place in March 2021 as set forth
in the affidavit of Detective Jules, dated March 12, 2021 The information charged Matthew with
the following count in Case No SX 2021 CR 075 Count I possession ofammunition, in violation
ofTitle 14 V l C § 2256(a)
1[4 On September 17, 2021, the People filed an information against Matthew based on the
events that allegedly took place in March 2021 as set forth in the affidavit of Detective Jules, dated
September 14, 2021 The information charged Matthew with the following count in Case No SX
2021 CR 214 Count I murder in the first degree in violation of Title 14 V I C § 922(a)(1) Count
[I assault in the first degree, in violation of Title 14 V I C § 295(1); Count 111 assault in the third
degree, in violation of Title 14 V l C § 297(a)(2), Count IV assault in the third degree, in violation
of Title 14 V I C § 297(a)(4)' Count V unauthorized possession of a firearm during a crime of
violence, in violation of Title 14 V I C § 2553(a); Count VI unauthorized possession of a firearm
in vehicle, in violation of Title 14 V l C § 2553(e); Count VII discharging or aiming firearms, in
violation of Title 23 V I C § 479(a); Count VIII possession of ammunition in violation of Title
14 V l C § 2256(a) and Count IX conspiracy in violation of Title 14 V I C § 551(1)
11 5 On February 7, 2022 the People filed this instant motion to consolidate In response,
Matthew filed an opposition thereto in both Case No SX 2021 CR 075 and Case No SX 2021
CR 214 Cumberbatch has not any opposition in Case No SX 2021 CR 073 3
3 The Office of Territorial Public Defender was initially appointed to represent Cumberbatch and was counsel of
record when the People filed its motion to consolidate However, there were several substitutions of counsel for
Cumberbatch since the People filed its motion to consolidate
On March 8, 2022, the Office of Territorial Public Defender filed a motion to be relieved as counsel which
the Court subsequently granted by order on March 14 2022 and it was relieved as counsel for Cumberbatch
People ofthe V I v Cumbelbalch
People ofthe V I v Matthew
People ofthe V I v Matthew
SX 2021 CR 073 SX 2021 CR 075 5X 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 4 of 12
116 Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and Case No SX 2021 CR 075 are currently scheduled to
commence jury selection and trial on January 23, 2023, Case No SX 2021 CR 214 has not been
scheduled for jury selection and trial
DISCUSSION
11 7 In its motion, the People moved to consolidate Case No SX 2021 CR 073, Case No SX
2021 CR 075 and Case No SX 2021 CR 214 pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 13 ofthe Virgin Islands
Rules of Criminal Procedure (hereinafier “Rule 8” and “Rule 13, ’ respectively) (Motion 2 ) The
People made the following assertions in support of its motion (i) Cumberbatch and Matthew have
been charged with identical charges stemming from the same incident and involving the same
victim and evidence (Id ) (ii) ‘The decision was made to charge Defendant Cumberbatch with
the majority of the crimes before a decision was made to charge Defendant Matthew with them
to wit, “Defendant Matthew was initially charged only with the Possession of Ammunition;
however, further investigation led to the additional charges being placed against him ’ (Id , at 2
3); (iii) “The single charge in SX 21 CR 075 is possession of ammunition The ammunition in
question was discovered in a vehicle driven by Defendant Matthew while the Virgin Islands Police
Department was investigating the murder charged in SX 21 CR 073 and SX 21 CR 214 (Id at
3); (iv) “[T]he crimes charged in all three cases ‘are of the same or similar character or are based
On March 16, 2022, an order was entered appointing Bruce Bennet Esq as counsel of record for
Cumberbatch On November 17 2022, Bruce Bennet Esq filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, which
the Court subsequently granted by order on November 17 2022 and he was relieved as counsel for
Cumberbatch
On December 1, 2022 an order was entered appointing Kyle W Beighle, Esq as counsel of record for
Cumberbatch On December 13, 2022, Kyle W Beighle, Esq filed a motion to be relieved as counsel which
the Court subsequently granted by order on December 22, 2022, and he was relieved as counsel for
Cumberbatch
People oflhe V I v Cumberbatch
People ofthe V I \ Matthew
People ofthe V! v Matthew
SK 2021 CR 073 SX 2021 CR 075 SK 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 5 of 12
on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or
constituting parts of a common scheme or plan ’4 (Id ); and (v) “All three cases will involve the
same facts, witnesses, and testimony
1[ 8 [n his opposition, Matthew argued that the Court should deny the People’s motion to
consolidate Matthew made the following assertions in support of his argument 5 (i) Matthew will
suffer prejudice “if murder, and other evidence of violence, is presented in his possession of
ammunition trial” and “he will also be prejudiced if a weak murder case is bolstered by an
allegation of unlawful possession of similar’ ammunition ’ to wit, “facts related to the murder
would be inadmissible under Rules 401, 404, and 403 if possession is tried separately (and vice
versa), ’ consolidation may result in Jury confusion, and ‘ a limiting instruction will not remove the
prejudice created if the murder evidence is presented to the jury deliberating on possession of
ammunition ’ (Opp l, 4, 13 15, 17), (ii) “[T]he prosecution s murder case is speculative at best
and weak” and thus ‘ [i]f consolidated the murder charge would be unfairly bolstered by the
possessing ammunition charge which is arguably stronger [and] [t]here is viable danger that
jurors would conflate the evidence so as to interpret the stronger possession of ammunition case
and decide that even though there is no gun in evidence that Matthew had bullets and ‘probably
shot the victim ” (Id , at 4) (iii) “The possession and murder charges filed under different
[nformations should not be consolidated in a single Information under Rule 13” since ‘ a trial
courts' discretion to consolidate is tempered by the limitation that joinder in a single indictment
4The People referenced VI R CRIM P 8(a)
5 In his opposition, Matthew noted that [g]iven the skeletal nature of the prosecution s motion to consolidate
the
defense has had to antic1pate prosecutorial arguments and may be compelled to move, in equity for sur rebuttal
(Opp 1 n1)
People ofthe V I v Cumberbatch
People ofthe VI v Matthew
People ofthe V I v Matthew
SX 2021 CR 073 SX 2021 CR 075 SX 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 6 of 12
could have been proper ’6 and here, [i]nstead of showing that the two informations could be tried
together because they could have been properly Joined in a single information the prosecution
merely proffers, without elaboration, that the cases will involve the same facts, witnesses and
testimony (Id , at 5 6), (iv) Unlike what the People argued, ‘ [t]he murder and possession charges
require the prosecution to prove different elements with different witnesses and evidence" to wit,
‘ [t]he facts related to the possession charge are not the same to prove the murder charge and the
“witnesses related to the murder case (e g , medical examiner, physicians, forensic and cell phone
experts) cannot testify to the possession and vice versa " (Id , at 6), (v) ‘ Consolidation under Rule
13 is permissible only if the doctrine of trial expediency ‘may be effected without interference
with substantial justice’ ’7 (Id , at 5), (vi) ‘ [N]otwithstanding the prosecution’s unsupported claim
otherwise the alleged constructive possession of ammunition (a nonviolent offense) and murder
(the most violent offense) are not of the same or similar character; or based on the same act or
transaction or parts of a common scheme or plan ’ and therefore, should not be joined under Rule
8 to wit, ‘ [t]he murder and possession cases are not the same class of offenses so as to justify
consolidation, “[t]here is no “transactional nexus ’ between the boxes of ammunition seized from
the gold Ford and the shell casings found near the victim’s gate, and “[t]he constructive
possession of ammunition charge stands on its own [and] can be proven without reference to a
murder ” (Id , at 7 l2); and (vii) “Common sense, fairness and jurisprudence dictate that a
defendant's innocence or guilt should have priority over economic concerns ” (Id , at 16 )
6 Matthew referenced United States 1 Rnera Hemamlez 439 F Supp 3d 20, 28 (D P R 2020) (referencing the
federal rule 13)
7 Matthew referenced United Slates \ Halper 590 F 2d 422 428 29 (2d Cir 1978)
People ofthe V] v Cumberbatch
People ofthe V I v Matthew
People ofthe V l v Matthew
SX 2021 CR 073 SX 202! CR 075 SX 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 7 of [2
1] 9 In this instance the People essentially moved the Court to consolidate Case No SX 2021
CR 073 Case No SX 2021 CR 075 and Case No SX 2021 CR 214 so that instead of having
three separate informations for the three cases, the People can file one amended information with
all the counts charged against Cumberbatch and Matthew in the three cases pursuant to Rule 8; or
alternatively, the People moved the Court to order the three informations in the three cases to be
tried together pursuant to Rule 13
1 Rule 8 and Rule 13
T l0 Rule 8 sets forth the requirements for joinder of offenses and defendants It provides
(a) Joinder of Offenses
The information may charge a defendant in separate counts with two or more offenses if
the offenses charged whether felonies or misdemeanors or both are of the same or similar
character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions
connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan
(b) Joinder of Defendants
The information may charge two or more defendants ifthey are alleged to have participated
in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an
offense or offenses The defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or
separately All defendants need not be charged in each count
V I R CRIM P 8
Rule 13 sets forth the requirement for a Joint trial of separate cases It provides
The court may order that two or more informations be tried together if all defendants and
offenses could properly have been joined in a single infomation, regardless of the number
of defendants [n all other cases, with the consent of the persons charged, a Judge may, for
convenience, consolidate informations for trial
V I R CRIM P 13
1| 11 “There is a public interest in Joint trials They avoid time consuming and expensive
trials They also avoid recalling witnesses, conserve judicial resources and lessen the burden on
jurors who must make sacrifices Joint trial is the rule, severance is the exception which applies
People ofthe V I t Cumberbatch
People ofthe V I 1 Matthew
People 0fthe VI 1 Matthew
8X 2021 CR 073 8X 2021 CR 075 5X 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 8 of 12
where joinder of defendants yields such prejudice to a defendant as to deny him his fundamental
right to a fair trial Govt ofthe V] v Petersen 1985 VI LEXIS 47 at *3 (Terr Ct July 16
1985)‘ see People v Najawzcz 2019 V1 Super 66 1] 12 (Super Ct May 10 2019) ( The People
accurately point out that Joint trials are the rule rather than the exception, and that Najawicz bears
the burden of demonstrating substantial prejudice from a joint trial ’)
1| 12 The Court will first address the joinder of offenses or joint trial for Matthew in Case No
SX 2021 CR 075 and Case No SX 2021 CR 214 then the Court will address the joinder of
defendants or joint trial for Cumberbatch in Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and Matthew in Case No
SX 2021 CR 075 or Cumberbatch in Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and Matthew in Case No SX
2021 CR 214
A Joinder of Offenses or Joint Trial Case No SX 2021 CR 075 and Case
No SX 2021 CR 214
1] 13 With regards to the issue of joinder of Matthew s offenses in Case No SX 2021 CR 075
and Case No SX 2021 CR 214 and the issue ofJoint trial for these two cases, the Court finds the
People 3 motion regarding these issues perfimctory and made without any support to its arguments
The People never explained how the offenses Matthew was charged with in Case No SX 2021
CR 075 and Case No SX 2021 CR 214 “are of the same or similar character or are based on the
same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting
parts of a common scheme or plan’ so that the offenses may be combined into one single
information pursuant to Rule 8(a)—to wit in Case No SX 2021 CR 075, the single count
information charged Matthew with possession of ammunition, in violation of Title 14 V I C §
2256(a), based on a search Detective Jules conducted on a gold F0rd Escape vehicle on March 10,
People ofthe V I v Cumberbatch
People ofthe V I I Matthew:
People ofthe V I 1 Matthew
SK 2021 CR 073 SX 2021 CR 075 SX 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 V1 SUPER 1
Page 9 of 12
2021 pursuant to a search warrant issued on March 9, 2021 which revealed live ammunitions,
(Jules Aff March 12 2021) and in Case No SX 2021 CR 214 the eight count information
charged Matthew with various crimes based on the alleged illicit activities that occurred on March
2, 2021 resulting in Ian Benjamin, Sr ’3 death, (Jules Aff , September 14, 2021) See Simpson v
Golden 56 V I 272 280 (V I 2012) ( The rules that require a litigant to brief and support his
arguments before the Superior Court, are not mere fonnalistic requirements They exist to give
the Superior Court the opportunity to consider, review, and address an argument”) Additionally,
the People never indicated that Matthew consented to a joint trial for Case No SX 2021 CR 075
and Case No SX 2021 CR 214 8 Instead the People simply re stated Rule 8(a) in its motion that
the crimes charged in all three cases ‘are of the same or similar character or are based on the same
act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts
ofa common scheme or plan ’ ’ (Motion 3 ) “It is not the Court's Job to research and construct legal
arguments open to parties In order to develop a legal argument effectively, the facts at issue
must be bolstered by relevant legal authority, a perfunctory and undeveloped assertion is
inadequate V I Tart Assoczatzon v West Indian Company Lzmzted, 2016 VI LEXIS 170, *4
(Super Ct Oct 18 2016)(citingChar1es 1 CBlAcqulsztzons LLC 2016 VI LEXIS 62 *27 n
66) The Court declines to make such argument on the People’s behalf See Joseph v Joseph, 2015
VI LEXIS 43 *5 (VI Super Ct Apr 23 2015) ( [1]n general the Court will not make a
movant's arguments for him when he has failed to do so ) As such, the Court will deny the
3 Under Rule 13 in cases where not all defendants and offenses could properly have been joined in a single
infomation,’ the Court may consolidate the informations for a joint trial only with the consent of the persons
charged V1 R CRIM P 13 Here based on Matthew sopposition, the Court concludes that Matthew did not consent
to ajoint trial for Case No SX 2021 CR 075 and Case No SX 2021 CR 214
People ofthe V] v Cumberbatch
People ofthe V I v Matthew
People ofthe V I 1 Matthew
SX 2021 CR 073 SX 2021 CR 075 SK 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 10 of 12
People 3 motion to consolidate as to the consolidation of Case No SX 2021 CR 075 and Case No
SX 2021 CR 214 pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 13 Case No SX 2021 CR 075 will proceed to
commence Jury selection and trial on January 23, 2023 as scheduled
B Joinder of Defendants or Joint Trial Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and
Case No SX 2021 CR 075 or Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and Case No
SX 2021 CR 214
1] 14 With regards to the issue ofjoinder of defendants Cumberbatch in Case No SX 2021
CR 075 and Matthew in Case No SX 202i CR 075 or Case No SX 2021 CR 214—and the issue
ofjoint trial for Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and Case No SX 2021 CR 075 0r Case No SX 2021
CR 073 and Case No SK 2021 CR 214 the Court finds the People 3 motion regarding these
issues similarly perfunctory and made without any support to its arguments The People never
explained how Cumberbatch and Matthew ‘have participated in the same act or transaction or in
the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses ” Additionally, the
People never indicated that Cumberbatch and Matthew consented to a joint trial for Case No SX
202l CR 073 and Case No SK 2021 CR 075 0r Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and Case No SX
2021 CR 214 9 Instead the People simply stated that ‘ [a]ll three cases will involve the same facts
9 Interestingly, Matthew s opposition never addressed the issue ofjoinder of defendants or issue ofjoint trial
for Case
No 8X 2021 CR 073 and Case No 8X 2021 CR 075 or Case No SK 2021 CR 073 and Case No SX
2021 CR
214, Matthew s opposition only addressed the consolidation of Case No SX 2021 CR 075 and Case No SX
2021
CR 2M Cumberbatch also has not addressed these issues since she never filed an opposition HOWever “a motion
is not automatically granted simply because it is unopposed Ayala 1 Lockheed Marin: Corp , 2017 V I LEXIS
39,
at *19 (VI Super Ct Mar 3 2017) (quoting In re Alumina Dust Chums 2017 VI LEXIS 2 at *26 (V1
Super Ct
Jan 10, 2017) In other words even though a motion is unopposed courts must still determine whether
to grant it
especially when the decision is within the court's discretion Augustin V. Hess 011 VI Corp , 67 V I
488, 501, (Super
Ct Aug 23 2017)
As noted above, under Rule 13, in cases where not all defendants and offenses could properly have
been Joined in a
single information, the Court may consolidate the informations for a joint trial only with the consent
of the persons
charged V I R CRJM P 13 While It is true that neither Cumberbatch nor Matthew opposed the People
5 motion to
consolidate as to the issue of joinder of defendants and the issue of joint trial that, in and of itself, cannot
constitute
consent since their failure to oppose may be due to reasons other than consent For example Matthew’s
failure to
People ofthe V I t Cumbeibalch
People ofthe V I i Matthew
People ofthe V] \ Matthew
SX 2021 CR 073 8X 2021 CR 075 SX 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER 1
Page 11 of 12
witnesses, and testimony ” (Motion 3 ) As noted above, ‘ [i]t is not the Court's job to research and
construct legal arguments open to parties In order to develop a legal argument effectively, the
facts at issue must be bolstered by relevant legal authority; a perfimctory and undeveloped
assertion is inadequate ” V I Tax: Assoczatton, 2016 V I LEXIS 170, *4 (citing Charles 2016 V I
LEXIS 62 *27 n 66) Again, the Court declines to make such argument on the People 5
behalf See Joseph 2015 V I LEXIS 43 *5 As such the Court will deny the People 5 motion to
consolidate as to the consolidation of Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and Case No SX 2021 CR 075
pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 13 and the Court will deny without prejudice the People 3 motion to
consolidate as to the consolidation of Case No SX 202] CR 073 and Case No SX 2021 CR 214
pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 13 so that the People may re file after Cumberbatch has been
appointed a new counsel '0 Jury selection and trial scheduled for January 23, 2023 for Case No
SX 2021 CR 073 will be continued to a later date to be set by a separate order
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the People’s motion to consolidate as to the consolidation of Case No
SX 2021 CR 075 and Case No SK 2021 CR 214 is DENIED It is further
ORDERED that the People 3 motion to consolidate as to the consolidation of Case No
SX 2021 CR 073 and Case No SX 2021 CR 075 is DENIED It is further
oppose may be due to oversight as a result of the People 8 perfunctory motion and Cumberbatch 3 failure to oppose
may be due to the frequent changes of her counsel this past year See supra, footnote 2
1° In the event that the People chooses to file another motion to consolidate Case No SX 2021 CR 073 and Case No
SX 2021 CR 214 the People are reminded to support their motion by citing the proper legal authority and make all
legal arguments
People oflht V I v Cumbclbatch
People 0ftht V I v Matthew
People oflhe V I v Matthew
SX 2021 CR 073 SX 2021 CR 075 SX 2021 CR 214
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2023 VI SUPER I
Page 12 of 12
ORDERED that the People’s motion to consolidate as to the consolidation of Case No
SX 2021 CR 073 and Case No SX 2021 CR 214 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE The
IN PERSON HEARING scheduled for all three cases on January 13 2023 shall proceed as
scheduled And it is further
ORDERED that jury selection and trial scheduled for January 23 2023 for Case No SX
2021 CR 073 shall be CONTINUED to a later date to be set by a separate order
rd
DONE and SO ORDERED this 3 day of January 2023
ATTFST MM M2
Tamana Charles HAROLD W L WILLO KS
Clerk of the Court Senior Sitting Judge of the Superior Court
ourt C erk r227;
Dated / 3 J_Q 97:1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
District of St. Croix
People of the Virgin Islands v. Ta'Jhanique Case Number: SX-2021-CR-00073
Cumberbatch Charges: 14 V.I.C. 922(a) - Murder 1st Degree
14 V.I.C. 922(a) - Murder 1st Degree
14 V.I.C. 295 - Assault First Degree
14 V.I.C. 297 - Assault Third Degree
14 V.I.C. 2253(a) - Possession Of An Unlicense
Firearm
14 V.I.C. 2253(E) - Unauthorized Possession of
a Firearm in a Vehicle
23 V.I.C. 479(a) - Illegal Discharge of a
Firearms
14 V.I.C. 2256(a) - Possession Or Sale Of
Ammunition
14 V.I.C. 551 - Conspiracy
NOTICE of ENTRY
of
Memorandum Opinion and Order
To: Patricia Lynn Pryor, Esq. Scott A. Burton, Esq.
Please take notice that on January 03, 2023
a(n) Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated January 03, 2023 was/were entered
by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.
Dated: January 03, 2023 Tamara Charles
Clerk of the Court
By:
Janeen Maranda
Court Clerk II