down the alley between the restaurant and the mini mart. Officer Allen also testified that at the time of the shooting there were several individuals operating a fruit stand in close proximity to the mini mart. The People additionally introduced numerous photographs depicting the area where the shooting occurred, including the restaurant, the mini mart, and the public road located directly in front of those establishments. Although the People could have done more to clearly establish that the shooting occurred in a public place, there was still sufficient evidence presented at trial to allow the jury to find that the shooting occurred in an area “usually accessible to the public.” See Alcindor v. Gov’t of V.I., D.C. Crim. No. 2004/84, 2006 WL 3526753, at *3-4 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2006) (<HOLDING>). The jury thus had a sufficient basis to
holding public safety exception to miranda warning requirement did not apply where there was no evidence gun had been left in public place recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that the concept of separate but equal has no place in public education holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding section 625 only requires a showing that the conduct was done in a place that is open to the public or where the public has a right to be