Photo Credit: BVI Platinum News
An officer of the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force, who stands as a prime witness in a matter where Akim Stevens is accused of burglary and trespassing, among others, was properly challenged by the accused as to the validity of his statements given to the court.
In an earlier appearance, Stevens pleaded not guilty to the offenses of burglary, criminal trespassing, driving an uninsured vehicle and driving without a license.
The offenses stem from an incident that occurred on May 13, 2016, where police responded to a robbery at Quito’s Guest House, Cane Garden Bay.
The court heard that Stevens was caught climbing up the back of the building, but fled to the beach after someone shouted, “Hey, what you doing here.”
In an appearance before the Magistrate’s Court on February 9, the officer testified that the report received on the night in question, properly identified the assailant as a tall male wearing a camouflage pants and a black hoodie.
The officer also noted that the owner of the property identified the assailant as Akim Stevens, highlighting that they worked together in the past.
While tendering the evidence before the court, the police revealed a camouflage pants and a black t-shirt.
In cross examining the officer, Stevens referenced that the officer noted a black hoodie in both his written and verbal reports, but revealed a t-shirt instead. In questioning the officer on the concern, the court heard that the officer must have mistakenly left it with another officer.
“I thought it was there,” the officer said.
Stevens responded, “You thought? So I’m in jail for 9 months for thoughts? You said you approached a man wearing a hoodie; where is the hoodie?”
As further outlined by the officer, on the night in question, the accused was found parked on the side of the road in a rental, dressed in a black hoodie and camouflage pants, with his feet dirty with sand.
Stevens allegedly told officers that he had just given someone a ride to Cane Garden Bay and was about to head back to town. He also informed the officers that he knew nothing about any robbery.
Stevens refused to testify in the matter, but rather opted to stay silent.
He will make another appearance on Thursday, February 16, when the court will deliver their decision on the matter.