Trial continued on Friday for Zunilda Anaya Baldovino, who has pleaded not guilty to two charges of doing a reckless and negligent act – supplying or administering “medicine or poison or dangerous matter” in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or safety.

One complainant gave evidence in August about a treatment she received from Ms. Baldovino at a beauty salon in November 2016. She said Ms. Baldovino had injected her face in three places and she detailed the pain she felt and the effect on her appearance.

A second complainant was scheduled to give evidence on Friday, but there was a delay. Inspector Winsome Prendergast, the investigating officer, was in the middle of giving her evidence. She would have submitted a CD containing the defendant’s third interview, but as Crown counsel Darlene Oko told Magistrate Philippa McFarlane, “For some reason, it’s not playing.”

Efforts were made to locate another copy but they were not successful and the court was advised that there was no transcript.

Taking into account other witnesses present to give their evidence, Ms. Oko and defense attorney Jonathon Hughes agreed that 3 p.m. on a Friday was not a good time to start questioning the second complainant. She was therefore asked to return on Monday, Nov. 1 and also be available the next day if necessary.

Ms. Prendergast, who stared her evidence in August, gave evidence of items recovered at the premises where Ms. Baldovino was arrested in January 2017. She said they included small instruments, needles and tweezers.

She also submitted interviews with the defendant, done with an interpreter of the Spanish language and with an attorney present.

In one interview, Ms. Baldovino said, “I deny I used any injections or needles.”

She said the needles belonged to a friend she used to live with who used them to give herself treatment. She said to the best of her knowledge, she had never worked outside the conditions of her work permit.

When it was suggested to her that she had administered drugs by injection, she replied, “No comment.”

She gave the same answer when asked if she had a license to administer injections to her clients as a cosmetologist.

Ms. Prendergast noted that the defendant did not have a work permit when she was arrested.

She agreed with Mr. Hughes that she had found vials of a substance called “Botomax” which was sent off for testing: it proved not to be Botox.

Comments are closed.