PWC Consulting


Ronnie Lee Kimble 


 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage





Brian Beaupre, Witness for the State


MR. PANOSH: Mr. Beaupre, please.

BRIAN BEAUPRE, being first duly sworn, testified as follows during DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Would you state your name, sir.

A    Brian Beaupre.

Q    And your occupation, sir?

A    Human resource manager for Precision Fabrics.

Q    And Precision Fabrics is what, sir?

A    It's a textile company.


Q    And in the course of your duties, are you responsible for the employment records of the various employees of Precision Fabrics?

A    Yes, I am.

Q    And approximately how many employees do you have?

A    250.

Q    And in the course of your duties, did you receive a subpoena to bring to court the records of Theodore Kimble?

A    Yes, I did.

MR. PANOSH: May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

Q    I show you what's been previously marked as State's Exhibit Number 101. Can you look at that, please. (Time was allowed for the witness.)

Q    After reviewing 101, are those the records -- or is that a copy of the records of Precision Fabrics as they apply to Theodore Kimble?

A    Yes.

Q    And are those maintained in the routine course of business?

A    Yes.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we'd seek to introduce 101.

THE COURT: The Court'll allow the introduction

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor.


THE COURT: The basis of the objection?

MR. LLOYD: Judge, first of all, we represent Ronnie Kimble, once again. These are Ted Kimble's business records. I don't know what they contain, in terms of Ted.

THE COURT: Have you had --

MR. LLOYD: There's nothing in there about Ronnie Kimble.

THE COURT: Have you had an opportunity to look at them, Mr. Lloyd?

MR. LLOYD: We've had plenty of opportunity to look at them, Your Honor. But I have never talked to Ted Kimble. I don't know anything about him. If Mr. Panosh wants to ask the personnel director questions about Ted Kimble, I'm perfectly satisfied to sit here and respond to cross-examination. I can't cross-examine those records. And basically, I'm not in a position to make a decision on what -- they're just simply not relevant to the case, Your Honor. There are letters in there from the company to Ted.

MR. PANOSH: May we --

MR. LLOYD: What relevance --

MR. PANOSH: May we approach?

THE COURT: Yes, please.

(The witness handed an exhibit to Mr. Panosh.)

(The following proceedings were had by the Court and all three counsel at the bench, out of the hearing of the jury.)


THE COURT: What is the relevance of these records?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, these are going to show the fact that he was employed and the period of his employment. And I provided counsel with a copy of these, and I told them if there was anything in this packet that he disapproves of or doesn't want in, I'll probably take it out. Shouldn't be no big contention. It just shows that he was employed, that he applied for employment --

MR. HATFIELD: Stipulate he was employed.

MR. LLOYD: I don't --

MR. PANOSH: -- September the 18th, and it shows his work history up until October the 9th. The date of the death on October the 9th, he was there from approximately 6:00 p.m. until he learned of the fire. And thereafter, he did not go back to work, and eventually, he was terminated as a mutual decision.

THE COURT: What's wrong with that, gentlemen?

MR. LLOYD: Well, because the records have a great deal more in it than that, Your Honor.

MR. PANOSH: Well, if there's something in there that you don't want, I'll take it out.

MR. LLOYD: What I'm saying is, I represent Ronnie Kimble, I don't represent Ted Kimble. I don't -- I'm not in a position to say whether it's damaging, it's hurtful.


THE COURT: I think they're entitled to show his employment --

MR. LLOYD: Well --

THE COURT: -- where he was at.

MR. LLOYD: -- why didn't he just ask the man a couple of questions about that? We're going to get the jury

THE COURT: You're going to ask him anyway, aren't you? Let's see what's in there, what's in there that's objectionable.

(Mr. Panosh handed the exhibit to the Court, and time was allowed for the Court.)

MR. HATFIELD: Well, one thing that's objectionable is trying to show through these records what time he was at work, because they don't show what time he was at work. And there's considerable conflict about what time he went to work, or even whether he went to work. This is a wrong way to establish Ted Kimble's activities on October 9, 1995. It's totally misleading, and we can't cross-examine it. It's not even consistent with other evidence that Mr. Panosh has disclosed. The gate at the business did not operate on that day. He banged on the door, to get let into work. Those payroll records don't mean anything, in terms of where he actually was on October 9th.


THE COURT: It shows he wasn't there.

(Further time was allowed for the Court.)

THE COURT: I'll limit it to the extent of his employment, the days he was there, and that's the extent of it, when he was employed and when he was terminated and what days he was there and when he was -- left on the job.

MR. PANOSH: All right.

THE COURT: Leave the other out.

MR. HATFIELD: But Your Honor, we don't accept that these records are --

THE COURT: Well, this witness is going to either -- under his control and authority or not. He's the personnel director, isn't he?

(Mr. Panosh nodded his head up and down.)

MR. HATFIELD: But if you admit the record, then

THE COURT: I'm not going to admit the record. I'm just going to let him testify about it.

MR. HATFIELD: Okay. Thank you.


(Proceedings continued in open court.)

THE COURT: Exhibit 101 is withdrawn by the State; is that correct, Mr. Panosh?

MR. PANOSH: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.


Q    (By Mr. Panosh) You did bring with you copies of the employment records of Mr. Theodore Kimble?

A    Yes.

Q    Based upon those records and your position as personnel director, can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury when he applied for work at Precision Fabrics.

A    He applied on September 7, 1995.

Q    And when was the date that he began working there?

A    9/18 of '95.

Q    And based upon those records, what was his position and his salary?

A    He was a frame operator in the lamination department on second shift. And his salary was $6.65 per hour.

Q    $6.65?

A    Per hour.

Q    And when you say "second shift," you're referring to what hours, please?

A    3:00 p.m. to 11:00.

Q    Now, when he began employment on September the 18th, would he have been working the 3:00 to 11:00 shift?

A    Yes.

Q    Was there a period of training prior to actually assuming the 3:00 to 11:00 shift, or could you tell from the records?

A    According to the records, looked like he was in


orientation for one week, which would have been on first shift.

Q    And first shift would be roughly what?

A    7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Q    And your work week goes from Monday to Friday; is that correct?

A    That's correct.

Q    September the 18th would have been his first Monday at work, and that would have been orientation week?

A    No. He actually was in orientation, according to this, Monday, October 2nd, to Friday, October 6th.

Q    After October the 6th, being a Friday, when would his next day of work be?

A    Monday, the 9th.

Q    Do your records reflect whether or not he reported to work on Monday, the 9th?

A    He did report to work. He only worked three and a half hours that day.

Q    And can you tell from your records what hours those were?

A    No, I could not.

Q    After October the 9th, did he report to work again?

A    No, he did not.

Q    Did there come a time when he was terminated?

A    Yes.


Q    And when was he actually terminated?

A    11/27th of '95.

Q    Between October the 9th and November the 27th, was he an active employee?

A    Yes. He was on leave.

Q    So was that paid leave?

A    No, it's not.

Q    Under your employment system, who has the responsibility of noting the actual time that people come and go from their duty stations?

A    The supervisor.

Q    And that's -- is that the person who's referred to as the lead man?

A    No. There actually is a supervisor and a lead man. The supervisor's supposed to record the time.

Q    Is there an entry for October the 9th by the supervisor?

A    Just on his attendance record that I have here, it's three and a half hours.

Q    So they've entered the total number of hours, but not the beginning and ending time?

A    That's correct.

(Mr. Panosh showed an exhibit to Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Hatfield.)

Q    Showing you what I've now labeled as Number 101, two


pages, are you familiar with those two pages?

A    Yes, I am.

Q    And are those explanations of benefits?

A    Yes.

Q    And it's basically a check list; is that correct?

A    The first sheet is.

Q    And on the second sheet of 101, does it indicate the benefits that the employee Ted Kimble elected to take?

A    That's on his dismissal, his termination date. It's election of benefit for medical insurance.

Q    And do you see it there?

A    Yeah.

Q    Okay. What type of insurance is it?

A    Medical, medical and dental.

Q    So that indicates that he applied for and received medical and dental coverage?

A    Actually, he was offered medical and dental on his termination date. You're offered coverage for 18 months. That's all this form says, that he's been offered COBRA benefits.

MR. PANOSH: May I approach?


(Time was allowed for Mr. Panosh to review the exhibit.)

Q    So it doesn't indicate whether or not he accepted it?

A    That's correct.


MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we would not tender 101. That's all the questions of this witness.

MR. LLOYD: No questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step down, sir.

(The witness left the witness stand.)

THE COURT: You may stand and stretch, members of the jury.



Published August 15, 2006.  Report broken links or other problems.

PWC Consulting.  Visit our website at for information on our Mission and Services, and to sign up for our Newsletter.