PWC Consulting


                  

Ronnie Lee Kimble 

                                                  

 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage

 

 

 

 

Hershel Sosnoff, Witness for the State


 

772

FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 1998

(Court convened at 9:37 a.m. The defendant was present. The jury was not present.)

THE COURT: Any matters we need to take care of before I bring the jury in?

MR. PANOSH: No, Your Honor.

MR. LLOYD: No, sir, Your Honor. (The jury entered the courtroom at 9:38 a.m.)

THE COURT: Well, it's nice to have you back. Everyone feeling okay? Anyone have any problems today? Good.

The State ready to proceed?

MR. PANOSH: Yes.

THE COURT: Next witness, please.

MR. PANOSH: Mr. Sosnoff, please.

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

Q    Would you state your name, sir.

A    My name is Hershel Sosnoff.

Q    And you are -- your position is, sir?

A    I'm the president of the general partner of the partnership that employed Patricia Kimble.

Q    And that's a corporation; is that correct?

A    I'm sorry, sir?

Q    Is that a corporation?


773

A    It is.

Q    And for the court reporter, could you spell that, please.

A    The name of the corporation?

Q    Yes.

A    Cinnamon General Corp., C-i-n-n-a-m-o-n.

Q    And in the course of your duties, do you supervise the apartments that are referred to as Cinnamon Ridge Apartments?

A    Yes, I do.

Q    And drawing your attention to 1995, and specifically, in September, October of 1995, did you employ Patricia Blakley Kimble?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    And what was her position with the company?

A    She was the manager of the Cinnamon Ridge complex.

Q    And that's an apartment project; is that correct?

A    It is.

Q    How many units, if you recall?

A    120.

Q    And did she have supervisory authority over other employees?

A    She did.

Q    In the course of your reviewing your employment records, did Cinnamon Ridge Corporation provide Patricia


774

with life insurance as a benefit of her employment?

A    Yes, we did.

Q    What was the amount of that?

A    It was in the face amount of $25,000, with an additional -- additional coverage for accidental death in an equal amount.

Q    So the total amount of $50,000, in the event of an accidental death?

A    That's correct.

Q    In the course of your duties, did there come a time on or about October the 9th when you were notified of Patricia's death?

A    Yes.

Q    And thereafter, on October the 11th, did you have a conversation with Theodore Kimble?

A    I did.

Q    Would you relate that conversation to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please.

A    Yes.

MR. LLOYD: Object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    Ted Kimble called me at my office and asked whether the partnership had a life insurance policy on Patricia, and told me that he really needed the money, and asked that I file the claim as soon as possible. And I did contact the


775

insurance company. And I learned that --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    And I learned that Ted was not the beneficiary of the policy, but that Patricia's mother, Sheila, was the beneficiary. And I called Ted to tell him that.

Q    Do you recall what date that was, that you returned that call?

A    I believe it may have been Friday. I think I -- it was -- was Thursday the 11th? It was probably the next day.

Q    Are you indicating that, based upon your recollection, it was the following day?

A    Yes, it was.

Q    And when you called Ted, what did he say?

A    He was very surprised and very unhappy to learn that he wasn't the beneficiary. He --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. He should tell what Ted said.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: Move to strike.

THE COURT: Members of the jury, disregard the last statement.

Q    What do you recall of what he said and the manner in which he said it?

A    He was very unhappy to learn that he was not the


776

beneficiary. And he indicated that it was his plan to call Sheila, Patricia's mother, and ask her to give him the money.

Q    As a result of that conversation, did you contact Ms. Blakley?

A    I did.

Q    And would you relate that conversation, please.

A    I told Mrs. Blakley that I had had the conversation I just reported with Ted, and that I thought he was planning to call her, and I encouraged her not to give him the money, because she might need it at some future time.

Q    Now, in the course of your duties there, you kept a file in reference to that; is that correct?

A    I did.

MR. PANOSH: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q    I'll show you now what I've marked as State's Exhibits 101, 102 and 103. And starting with 101, what is -- which is a four-page document, what is that, please? And keep your voice up, if you could.

A    This is -- these are copies of correspondence which I sent to the Shenandoah Life Insurance Company, reporting Patricia's death, and a letter I sent to Mrs. Blakley, Patricia's mother, giving her a copy of the filing of the claim for her record.


777

Q    Okay. And 102, is this an indication of payment on that, dated on March the 4th of '96?

A    Yes. This is a check from the Shenandoah Life Insurance Company, payable to Sheila Blakley, in the amount of $25,000.

Q    And subsequently, Number 103, is that a record of the payment of the second $25,000?

A    Yes. This is a check for $25,000, plus interest the insurance company paid, because of the almost year's passage of time after the death.

MR. PANOSH: We'd seek to introduce 101 through 103, please.

THE COURT: The Court'll allow --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HATFIELD: Well, Your Honor, these have no bearing on Ronnie Kimble.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HATFIELD: And they -- they may come in for corroboration of Mrs. Blakley's testimony, if that's what the Court's intention is, but I don't see how they could be evidence in this case.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Proceed.

MR. PANOSH: That's all the questions of this


778

witness. Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Cross-examination?

MR. LLOYD: No questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Step down, sir.

MR. LLOYD: We would ask that the Court give the conspiracy instruction given earlier, with regard to this witness's testimony.

THE COURT: Again, remember, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that this testimony is being offered for the purpose of State's -- or requirement that they prove to you the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and that this defendant was a part of that conspiracy. If they fail to prove that to you beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should not consider this evidence in any way against this defendant. Do you understand that?

(Jurors nodded their head up and down.)

THE COURT: Okay.

Proceed.

Step down, sir.

(The witness left the witness stand.)

 

 

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

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