Defendant's convictions on charges of first degree robbery and grand larceny are affirmed. The Superior Court did not err in denying a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. A key witness' identification testimony based on personal observation, in the circumstances, was reliable and not inherently incredible. The evidence presented would allow any rational jury to find that this defendant was guilty of the crimes charged. The trial court erred in sentencing this defendant separately for the first degree robbery and grand larceny convictions because they both arose out of the same act. Thus this case is remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing on the grand larceny charge pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 104.