Prosecutors have blocked 11 of defense counsels’ questions through persistent objections, when first State witness Mr. Elvis Cephas faced cross – examination in the ongoing trial of LoneStar Cell MTN employee Suzette A. Blake, who faces indictment for alleged misapplication of US$66,000 and L$449,515.00, respectively.
Defendant Suzette was indicted for allegedly converting proceeds of mobile phones, scratch cards and sim cards entrusted in her care as LoneStar Cell MTN’s Regional Sales Supervisor to supply stores, gas stations, pharmacies and bus stops between March 2014 and July 2015.
Her defense team was cross-examining witness Cephas based on his earlier account before Criminal Court “C” on Tuesday, 30 August in which he cited numerous verbal interventions followed by formal communication with defendant Suzette’s manager, regarding remaining stocks that were unaccounted for after her last report in February 2015.
But the defense team’s questions at witness Cephas faced persistent prosecution objections on Wednesday, 11 of which presiding Criminal Court “C” Judge Emery S. Paye, sustained on various grounds.
According to him, all documents required were submitted to the police, and it is the basis upon which he said the police came up with “their figure” of US$66,000 as indicated. Though he said he could not speak to such matter, witness Cephas said from his analysis which was based on stock that was in the defendant’s possession, and having multiplied the quantity by the selling price, it was determined that the defendant indeed had US$72,810 [due] the company.
The witness told cross – examiners that the quantity of goods received and the quantity of goods unaccounted for [do] have the same unit price. In distinguishing between Unit Cost and Unit Price , the witness explained that the goods received … has unit price “which by definition is the price paid by the company to bring such goods or commodity into her warehouse.”
Regarding unit price, he said it is the price at which the company sells to make margin, adding in summary that the goods received have unit price and the goods unaccounted for have unit cost.
Witness Cephas maintained that after analysis was done by means [of] multiplying the unaccounted quantity by the selling price, the company arrived at US$72,810.00, in his response to cross – examiner’s’ inquiry that a “document marked and confirmed by the court … proved that defendant Suzette fell short of US$72,810.”
Regarding defendant Suzette’s last report and when the transactions were posted, witness Cephas said the balance of the stock that she still has in her possession for the company is in line with what the financial system has on the virtue warehouse.
“… [As] such we concluded by saying there was no discrepancy,” he said and further testified that the amount of the stock from the cost stand point was US$30,000 plus. But he added that from the “fair value” stand point upon which the analysis was done or the selling price derived, the value of the stock unaccounted for was US$72,810.
By Winston W. Parley-Editing by Jonathan Browne