A man found guilty of being involved in a shooting has had his conviction overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Stacey Robinson had been sentenced to 12 years in prison after being convicted of wounding Lionel Thomas Jr with intent to cause bodily harm, but the Appeals Panel found that the jury had been misdirected about a piece of evidence that should not have been admitted.

Mr Thomas was shot outside his neighbour’s home in St David’s in the early hours of April 29, 2014. He told the court he was returning home when he saw a group of figures who appeared to be approaching his bedroom. He went to investigate and saw the silhouettes of three people. He confronted the group, and was shot twice in the leg.

A female friend told the court she heard several gunshots, and then saw three figures approach a parked car without licence plates. She said the figures then left the area, leaving the car behind.

One man, Shannon Dill, was arrested later that morning while attempting to retrieve the car, which had been cordoned off by police. The car’s licence plate — along with the keys — were found locked inside.

Mr Robinson and two others were subsequently arrested in connection to the shooting. While Dill pleaded guilty to two counts, Mr Robinson denied the offences during a Supreme Court trial.

Throughout the trial, prosecutors alleged that Mr Robinson had been an accessory to the shooting after the fact and guilty on the principle of joint enterprise based largely on WhatsApp messages to and from Mr Robinson’s phone. Mr Robinson, however, said the messages had been sent by Dill.

During the appeal hearing, defence counsel Elizabeth Christopher argued that the court had heard hearsay evidence involving a conversation between Dill and a witness in which Dill said Mr Robinson was “in trouble”.

However, Crown counsel Nicole Smith said the evidence was admissible to show the state of mind of the witness.

In a judgment dated November 19, the appeals panel wrote that even if the evidence was admissible, the prejudicial effect far outweighed any probative value.

“It seems to us clear that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay,” the judgment states.

“The reason for the rule is clear, the maker of the statement cannot, because he hasn’t given evidence, be tested as to the veracity of the statement.

“That is of particular relevance in the present case because the jury knew that Dill had pleaded guilty to the very same offence with which the appellant was charged.

“Furthermore, he said nothing about his involvement in the shooting to [the witness].

“He may very well have had an interest in implicating the appellant by saying that he was in trouble.

“He had reason to protect his own skin and the evidence could not be tested.

“The statement on its face was damning, the jury would no doubt be asking themselves the question why is the appellant in trouble and for what?”

The court also found that in his summary, Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves misdirected the jury about how to handle that specific evidence.

The judgment described the rest of the evidence against Mr Robinson as at most “extremely thin”, and as such the conviction was not safe.

As a result, they allowed the appeal, setting aside Mr Robinson’s conviction.