VANGUARD COURT WATCH: Attempted kidnapping Case in Woodland

by Antoinnette Borbon

Today we heard testimony in the state’s case against defendant Kyle Hall.  Hall is charged with one count of false imprisonment and another count of attempted kidnapping.

On November 25th, 2012, the alleged victim and her boyfriend were at the Raley’s shopping center in Woodland.

She said the young man asked her, “What are you willing to do for 3 dollars?”

The woman replied,” I don’t do that, I’m not a prostitute!” and then she started to walk away but the defendant grabbed ahold of her ponytail and tried to pull her inside his vehicle.

She began yelling, “Help!” as the defendant was covering her mouth.  Her boyfriend came running over.  The defendant let go and fled in his truck.  She called police to the scene and told them what had just happened.

During her testimony, she broke down crying and court went to recess.  But she was able to return and identify the defendant as her assailant.

During cross-examination, Defense Attorney Ortiz asked her why she never told the police that the defendant had propositioned her.  She stated, “I don’t know?  I can’t remember everything!”

Prosecution redirected with questions about her education, ability to read back her own statements and whether she understood the difference between the truth and a lie.  She answered, “Yes,” and told the court she only completed school through the tenth grade.

Next witness for the prosecution’s case was Detective Hyde.  Hyde stated he found the white truck at the Walmart parking lot, where he waited for the owner to return to his vehicle. As he watched, he saw two men believed to be in their early thirties walk to the truck.

He testified that he approached the defendant and showed him his badge and gun letting him know he was an officer and just wanted to ask him some questions.  He stated the defendant consented to answer.

Detective Hyde told him he had a video of him and the alleged victim at the Raley’s parking lot.  He said he told the defendant that a woman reported to police that a man, who fit his description, attempted to kidnap her from the parking lot while she was there panhandling.

The defendant told Detective Hyde he was there but left because a woman tried to rob him and a man put a knife to his back so he fled, scared for his life.

Detective Hyde told the court he left his card with the defendant and left the parking lot only to return after realizing the defendant may have been lying.

He stated when he returned to re-question him about what happened, the defendant changed his story and said he was under the influence of a drug called “spice,” and it makes him blackout.

He told the detective he cannot remember what he does while on the drug and it causes him to do crazy things.

After telling Hyde this story he then read the defendant his Miranda rights from memory, and placed him under arrest.

The defense made a motion to suppress, stating that the defendants’ rights were violated.  Judge Richardson denied the motion.

After testimony was over in regard to the kidnapping charges, Detective Hyde testified about a laptop the defendant’s friend brought to the police department the following day.

David White, the defendant’s friend, told the detective he had found something very disturbing on the defendant’s laptop that he felt authorities should see.

Detective Hyde opened it up and did a search used to locate evidence from computers. He testified to finding hundreds of pictures and videos of children between the ages of 5 to six having sex with male adults.

Hyde stated there were pictures of the defendant dressed in different types of clothing, perhaps costumes. And in the videos were several different types of child pornography, along with the defendant exposing himself in photos.

Defense attorney Ortiz tried to convince the court there was no real indication of the ownership of the laptop in custody, but Judge Richardson ruled there to be sufficient evidence about the ownership of the laptop to be that of the defendant’s.

He also ruled there to be sufficient evidence to keep the charges of both the false imprisonment and attempted kidnapping of a person.

There are new charges resulting from the evidence found on the laptop, giving the defendant another case. The preliminary hearing will continue on March 11 in Department 1.

Short Vandalism Trial

By Vanguard Court Watch Interns

Air Force veteran Brenton Dumas is being charged with four counts of vandalism after destroying a phone, television and broom on September 13, 2011 and breaking a cell window, from the inside, on September 18, 2011.  All objects belong to the Yolo County Jail.

His trial began Wednesday, February 20, 2013, in the afternoon in Department 2 and will continue in the same department with the closing arguments on the morning of February 21.

The trial was held under Judge Fall with Deputy District Attorney Marrow and Defense Attorney Cassidy, who represented Dumas.

In the opening arguments, DDA Marrow stated that Dumas is guilty because “choices have consequences,” and because Dumas made the choice to damage Yolo County Jail property, he must accept the consequences.

Defense Attorney Cassidy, on the other hand, brought to our attention that Dumas was suffering from mental illness so he could not have “acted maliciously or intentionally” when vandalizing the items.

Dumas had medical documentation of his illness and after the incident, Dumas was put on suicide watch after suggesting that the broken broom could have been used as a weapon against him.

Five witnesses were heard and were all officers who were involved with the incidents after they occurred.

Although the trial was relatively short, it was interesting that the only witnesses that were called to the stand were people who only knew and heard about the incident.

None were actually directly involved, nor were there witnesses who actually witnessed the incidents occur.

Another interesting thing is that Defense Attorney Cassidy tried to make a case that Dumas’ vandalism was a result of his mental illness, but there was no evidence provided about his illness nor was there testimony that supported that Dumas was unintentionally “vandalizing” the items.

It’s difficult to grasp how a jury can come to a conclusion with so little evidence and such narrow testimony by people who only knew what was told to them about the incident.

Hopefully the closing statements provided more foundation for the jury to decide justly.

Categories: