IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN



==Q0)==



ANN MARIE SEELEY,

: Plaintiff



vs.



CIVIL NO. 58/1981



THE FRUIT BOWL, INC., DAVID



GOLDBERG, STEVE SESSA, and JOHN



DOE Severally and Individually,

li Defendants :



STEDMANN HODGE, ESQ.



P. O. Box 9910



St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

(Attorney for Plaintiff)



JAMES L. HYMES, III, ESQ.

40A Norre Gade



St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

(Attorney for Defendants)



i MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

| (February 74 » 1982)



| FEUERZEIG, J.



|



\. Plaintiff Ann Marie Seeley has filed a motion for a new trial



on the sole issue of damages pursuant to Rule 59. of the Federal



Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for an additur.

Plaintiff states that the court by permitting the plaintiff to be

impeached by her conviction for robbery, which is presently being

appealed, misled the jury into making an erroneous award and that

the amount awarded by the jury was grossly inadequate. The court

will deny beth-ef plaintiff's motion..



Rule 609(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that



in a criminal case for impeachment purposes a court may admit



' evidence of a defendant's conviction if the crime was punishable by

imprisonment in excess of one year. If the crime involves dis-

honesty or false statements, it is automatically inadmissible.

Rule 609(e) further provides that the pendency of an appeal does



not render the evidence of a conviction inadmissible. The defend-



ants, in this civil case, introduced as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1

2"



a December 23, 1981 judgment and commitment of the plaintiff by



the District Court for the offenses of second degree robbery and



petit larceny.



Clearly, therefore, the admission of plaintiff's



conviction in this civil case was permissible.



Furthermore, the court is of the opinion that the jury's



verdict was based on the evidence submitted to it and that the



instructions submitted to the jury were clear and precise.



Accordingly, it is



ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a new trial or, in the



alternative, an additur, is denied.



DATED: February yA 1982



YL. FEUER



Jifdge of the Ter



rial Court