Detective Sergeant Mitchell Baron on Thursday testified that Michelle Davis’s suspicious behaviour was evidence to link her to the arms and ammunition allegedly found in the home where she resided.
Baron made the statement under cross-examination as the trial of Davis, who is facing charges of illegal possession of arms and ammunition and harbouring a wanted man continued before Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton at the Wales Magistrate’s Court.
Asked by Defence Counsel Humkumchand whether he found evidence, apart from the bag with the arms and ammunition found in the house, to link the defendant to the offence, Baron said that he had and had informed the court about this in his evidence-in-chief.
Earlier, in responding to the defence counsel, Baron acknowledged that he did not allow the defendant to open the gate for him but he jumped over the fence and entered the yard. He said that he took 30 seconds to jump over the fence and enter the house and entered it while Davis was inside and he was 8 – 10 seconds behind her.
He stated that he had indeed asked her to open the western door and she complied and when he entered the house he did not see Davis holding any arms and ammunition nor did he see any on her person. He said at the location where she was when he entered the home he did not see any arms and ammunition and agreed that he had told the court that the arms and ammunition were found in the attic.
The witness agreed that where the arms and ammunition were found in the attic, no persons were present and the items were in a bag. He acknowledged that he had asked Davis whether she knew about the arms and ammunition and her response was in the negative.
Asked by Humkumchand whether he agreed that the same question was asked of the male person that was found in the house and the male replied that ‘those things concern me’ and Davis knew nothing about them, Baron said he agreed.
He however disagreed with the suggestion that that was the evidence upon which he charged the defendant. He said that he found evidence quite apart from the bag found in the house, to link Davis to the offence and had told the court about the said evidence in his evidence-in-chief.
“I, in my evidence-in-chief, outlined the circumstances, that is her suspicious actions, she ran after being told ‘Police’; the area where the arms and ammunition were found, she had access to that area”, he declared.
At this point, the defence counsel asked the Magistrate to read where in the evidence-in-chief; the witness had said that the defendant had access to the area. The magistrate read the notes and noted that Baron had outlined the circumstances.
Questioned as to whether the gate was locked when Senior Superintendent Crawford said ‘open the gate’, Baron replied in the affirmative and asserted that he could say that the defendant was not going for the key when Crawford said ‘open the gate, police’. He admitted that he had not asked Davis whether she went for the keys and declared that he suspected that she was not going for any keys and said that that information was not personal to him.
“That was established because the gate does not use any key. It uses a remote control”, he declared.
He acknowledged that he had earlier told the court under cross-examination that he could not remember whether the gate had a padlock and said that he did not check to see whether it had one.
Baron said that he entered the attic by means of a step that leads from the washroom area to the attic, when it is opened. He stated that he did not know whether Davis ever went into that attic and he had never asked her so nor did anyone, in his presence, ask her so.
Under further questioning, he said that he heard that the man, who admitted owning the arms and ammunition, was originally charged for the offence. He noted that he had not laid those charges. “I am not aware of whether the admission by the male was proven false”, he stated adding that he knew of no admission by Davis of the arms and ammunition.
After Humkumchand, finished his cross-examination of Baron, the matter was adjourned and a date was set for re-examination by the prosecution.
Davis is facing three charges of harbouring a wanted man, illegal possession of arms and illegal possession of ammunition.
It is alleged that on June 28 at Lot 91 Parfait, La Grange, she knowingly harboured Terrence Sugrim whose name and photograph had been publicly displayed or published by the police as a wanted person for the purpose of extradition to the US, in connection with the alleged commission of the offence of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics.
It is also alleged that on the said date and place Davis had in her possession two firearms and a quantity of ammunition without being the holder of a firearm licence.
She had previously been charged along with Sugrim but the charges against him have since been withdrawn and he has been committed into custody on a warrant to await extradition following a ruling in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court. (Gaulbert Sutherland)
