VANGUARD COURT WATCH: Crimes Across Counties Problematic in Assuring Right to a Fair Trial

by Alexandra Rose

On the morning of Monday, April 8, 2013, in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California, Yolo County, the armed robbery case of Andrew White was set to start under the Honorable Stephen L. Mock.

Andrew White is charged with two counts of robbery with use of a firearm, with an additional two enhancements related to discharging a firearm that inflicted great bodily injury.

The trial began with the introduction of Deputy District Attorney Robin Johnson, representing the People of California, and private attorney James M. Granucci, representing the defendant Andrew White.

After reviewing the charges and pre-hearing conference transcript, Judge Mock addressed the courtroom and vocalized his concern about the enhancement regarding the discharging of a firearm that inflicted great bodily injury.  He believed that great bodily injury was not inflicted on the victim, Ms. Susan Fattah, and that she was, in fact, unharmed.  The issue was left to be resolved in another session.

The admissibility of evidence is of great concern in this case.  Having been convicted of five counts of armed robbery in Sacramento County in June of 2010, Andrew White runs the risk that the jury could base White’s guilt in this case in Yolo County on his previous convictions in Sacramento County.  This is especially relevant if the previous convictions are verbally mentioned or if the videos of the previous robberies are viewed as evidence during the trial, even if only for identification.  This clearly affects his right to a fair trial.

Judge Mock decided to allow White’s criminal history to be mentioned during trial and the videos of the other robberies to be admitted for identification, while he chose to grant Mr. Granucci’s request to bar questions from the prosecution to the police officers concerning their speculation that the same person committed the robberies in each of the videos.

The court took a recess, and then jury selection began.

Judge Finds Insufficient Evidence to Support Violation of Probation

By Vanguard Court Watch Interns

Yesterday’s preliminary hearing in Department 4 reviewed Howard Correa’s case, for a possible violation of probation.

As part of Correa’s probation terms and conditions, he is not allowed to be in the presence of minors, except his own children. The other exception to this condition is, in the presence of other minors, if there is also a responsible adult present.

Deputy Gary Hallonback, from the sheriff’s department, was notified through a dispatcher that Howard Correa was with a 13-year-old girl. An anonymous caller tipped off the dispatcher about this information.

When Hallonback arrived at Correa’s residence, he noticed Correa in his truck, backing up, although Correa stopped once Hallonback arrived. Correa informed Hallonback he was getting back from work.

Hallonback asked if a 13-year-old girl was in the residence. Correa denied a minor was at his residence, but stated his girlfriend and son were inside. It is worth noting that Hallonback observed Correa’s son running inside, once Hallonback arrived at Correa’s residence.

Eventually, Hallonback found a 13-year-old girl hiding under a bed in Correa’s house. This girl is the daughter of Correa’s girlfriend.

Later, Mr. Correa admitted to the deputy that the girl lives at the residence on and off. When he leaves for work, the girl is at his house.

On cross-examination, Hallonback testified the 13-year-old girl did not say Correa was in the house the day of the incident. In fact, no one else reported Correa being in the house earlier that day. Furthermore, Hallonback does not know how Correa knew the girl was in the house, nor does Hallonback have any evidence indicating Mr. Correa told the minor to hide.

The court also heard from Terry Huerta, a supervising probation officer for the Yolo County Probation Department.

Huerta reviewed the terms and conditions of Mr. Correa’s probation with Mr. Correa. Huerta made the modification for Correa to be in the presence of his children.

When Ms Huerta learned Mr. Correa was living with his girlfriend and her children, she made a note of the names and dates of births of Correa’s girlfriend’s children. Afterwards, Huerta repeatedly and clearly informed Correa he could not be around his girlfrend’s children. Either he or his girlfriend had to move out of the residence.

Terry Huerta does agree with the defense that, if Mr. Correa is gone during the day at work, Correa’s girlfriend’s children could be at the residence. By the time Correa returns from work, as long as his girlfriend’s children are not present, this is fine.

Also, Huerta made no efforts to contact Correa’s girlfriend to determine her to be a responsible adult. Recall that Correa can be in the presence of other minors, as long as there is a responsible adult present.

Huerta stated the reason why she did not contact Correa’s girlfriend is because Correa did not have therapy sessions for a while, for probation to consider modifying his terms and conditions.

When Huerta was dismissed from the witness stand, Mr. Templeton, Correa’s lawyer, argued there is a lack of preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Templeton stated there is no evidence Correa was in the presence of minors.

He further added Correa did not willfully intend to violate his probation. Templeton reasoned if Correa is with his girlfriend’s children when his adult girlfriend is present, then this should not be a problem. Templeton admitted, however, that the court has not recognized Correa’s girlfriend as a responsible adult.

Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays responded that there is circumstantial evidence in the prosecution’s favor. She provided a list of circumstantial evidence as follows: probation warned Correa not to be present with his girlfriend and her children, the 13-year-old girl was hiding under the bed, Correa’s son ran into the house as soon as the deputy arrived, and Correa initially lied to the deputy.

Judge David Rosenberg concluded there was insufficient direct evidence of Correa violating his probation. While there is circumstantial evidence, the judge found this also to be insufficient for a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, Mr. Correa was reinstated on probation.

Categories: