Pook was convicted of setting her common-law husband afire, causing his death

Veola Pook, 56, appeared before a panel of Justices in the Court of Appeal today, and had her case appealed by attorney Simeon Sampson. Pook was convicted of setting her common-law husband, Orlando Mai Vasquez, ablaze after dousing him with a flammable liquid.

According to police, on December 31, 2008, Vasquez was at his home in Rancho Dolores when it is alleged that Pook approached him, threw some flammable liquid on him, and set him on fire. Police arrived on the scene and found Vasquez lying on the ground by the kitchen door, covered with a blanket.

When the blanket was removed, police found Vasquez still breathing, but suffering from burns on almost his entire body. Vasquez was taken to the hospital, where he died from first and second degree burns while receiving treatment.

Pook was arrested and charged with Vasquez’s murder, and in July of 2011, her trial started. In that trial, Sgt. Aaron Zuniga testified that when he arrived on the scene in Rancho Dolores and saw Vasquez on the ground suffering from what appeared to be burns, he asked what had happened. It was at this point that Pook allegedly told him “Dah me ketch ah fiah.”

It was based on this alleged utterance that Pook had been charged with the murder and eventually convicted on July 8, 2011.

Today, Sampson argued that the judge erred in law when he accepted the alleged oral confession of Pook. Sampson told the court that since Zuniga was the arresting officer and the person to whom the alleged confession was given very shortly after the incident, he should have first adverted that it was “freely given and voluntarily made.”

He also argued that “before such admission is received in evidence, the prosecution must prove affirmatively to the satisfaction of the judge that it was not induced by any promise of favour or advantage, or by use of fear, threat or pressure, by or on behalf of a person in authority.”

Sampson informed the court that there was no other evidence against Pook, and therefore, the submission of “no case” should have been upheld, and submitted that the conviction should, in the interest of justice, be quashed.

After hearing the response of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the panel of justices decided that they would reserve their decision for a later date and would submit it to the Registrar for the Court of Appeal.