To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Government of the Virgin Islands v. Knight

Citation. Virgin Islands v. Knight, 26 V.I. 396 (D.V.I. Oct. 7, 1991)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

The defendant, Henry Knight (the “defendant”), beat the victim, Andreas Miller (“Mr. Miller”), in the head with a pistol, and the pistol discharged during the beating killing Mr. Miller. The defendant was charged with second degree murder, and was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and of two weapons charges. The defendant admitted to the beating, but contended the shooting was accidental

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Witness testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those inferences or opinions which are rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of fact in issue.


The defendant was striking Mr. Miller in the head with a pistol when the gun fired and killed Mr. Miller. The defendant was indicted for two firearms violations and second degree murder. During trial, the defendant admitted grabbing Mr. Miller and striking him with a gun, but claims the gun discharged accidentally. The district court did not allow eyewitnesses or the investigating officer to offer their opinion that the discharge of the gun was accidental.


Was it reversible error to exclude the testimony regarding whether the firing of the gun was accidental?


Circuit Judge Cowen issued the opinion of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (“Third Circuit”) and found that while the district court did err in excluding the eyewitness testimony, such error did not prejudice the defendant. Thus, the conviction is affirmed.


The police officer’s opinion was properly excluded because he did not observe the assault, thus he did not have first hand knowledge.
The eyewitness testimony should have been allowed, but the Third Circuit found the error harmless. Additional evidence would have allowed the jury to infer that the shooting was accidental. Further, the government hardly challenged the issue of whether the shooting was accidental, and during closing arguments alluded to the fact that it probably was accidental. Thus, the trial court’s ruling would not have significantly prejudiced the defendant.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following