Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-5-2006

Govt of VI v. Barton Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-1341

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "Govt of VI v. Barton" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1316. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1316

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 05-1341 ___________

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS,

Appellant

v.

CHRISTOPHER BARTON ___________

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

(D.C. No. 04-cr-00089) Chief District Judge: The Honorable Raymond L. Finch District Judge: The Honorable Thomas K. Moore Territorial Judge: The Honorable Darryl Dean Donohue ___________

ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 2005

BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, McKee and Nygaard, Circuit Judges.

(Filed :April 5, 2006) ___________

Richard S. Davis, Esq. (Argued) Office of Attorney General of Virgin Islands Department of Justice 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade GERS Building, Second Floor Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI 00802

Counsel for Appellant Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. (Argued) 5025 Anchor Way, Suite One Gallows Bay Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI 00820

Counsel for Appellee

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT ___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

The issue in this appeal is whether a copy of a court order, submitted in an attempt

to establish the finality of a Florida custody order, was properly admitted into evidence

during the trial of Christopher Barton for concealing a material fact from a government

agency. The Territorial Court admitted the copy into evidence and, based entirely on the

admitted copy, a jury convicted Barton. On appeal, the Appellate Division of the District

Court (consisting of three District judges) reversed and vacated the sentence. We agree

substantially with the Appellate Division’s opinion that the copy was not admissible

under any relevant Federal Rule of Evidence. Accordingly, we will affirm the Appellate

Division’s order vacating Barton’s conviction.

2