Winters Man Accused of Stalking and Violation of Court Order

By Catherine McKnight

Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hayes began her opening statement by describing the alleged victim in this case and some of the events that led up to the restraining order she ultimately sought against her husband, Juan Martinez.

Ms. Hayes portrayed to the jury numerous occasions when the defendant allegedly showed up where he was not welcome, including their son’s school, Mrs. Martinez’ workplace, and her parents’ home. She said that this continued to happen even after Mrs. Martinez obtained a restraining order and that “nothing had changed.”

Juan Martinez has a stalking charge filed against him, along with three violations of a court order.

Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt opened by stating that this case focuses on two dates in particular: April 5 and April 8 of this year. He instructed the jury to focus on those dates – not before and not after. Mr. Van Zandt explained that on April 5, he was found at the trailer because he had been living there for several months.

“That was his address, and hers was Hooper Street. He was cooking beans and needed a place to stay,” he continued. He said that Mr. Martinez was not following his wife and that there is no evidence to show otherwise.

On April 8, the defense said that Mr. Martinez went to Horizon Personnel Services to apply for a job. Mr. Van Zandt explained how his client used to work at Mariani Nut Company in Winters – where is wife is currently employed. He went on to say that any work restraining order did not restrict him from being on that property, which he later described as “10 Abbey Street.”

Mr. Van Zandt said that there was no harassment, no following, no threats, and no evidence of any, which is necessary for a stalking conviction.

Moving into evidence, the people called DDA Diane Ortiz to the stand. Ms. Ortiz, who is mainly a domestic violence prosecutor, was asked to describe the different kinds of protective orders that are issued by the court. She explained that when a restraining order is issued at the beginning of a case, it is good until the termination of proceedings. If the defendant is sentenced, there are changes to the conditions of probation or conditions of sentencing.

DDA Deanna Hayes then called the alleged victim to the stand, who needed a Spanish interpreter. Mrs. Martinez has been married to the defendant for fifteen years, with divorce proceedings currently in progress. They have three children together but she and her children left to live with her parents in October of 2012.

Mrs. Martinez explained that she did not want to leave her children with the defendant because he has a drug problem. She said that Mr. Martinez would go to her workplace and look for her almost every day and that it became a problem. The police were called several times and DDA Hayes asked her about her eldest son’s school. Mrs. Martinez explained that he would show up at his school when she would drop him off and pick him up and that one time he got into their car.

To get a better understanding of the trailer, where Mrs. Martinez and her children had been living until it caught fire, DDA Hayes asked why the alleged victim believes it belongs to her. She responded by explaining how she has worked and paid for it without the defendant’s help.

Ms. Hayes asked her about the restraining orders she filed – one she filed civilly and the other was a criminal court order.  On March 29, she was present for Mr. Martinez’s sentencing. She pointed out the addressees indicated on the restraining order – Mrs. Martinez’ parents’ home and the trailer. Mrs. Martinez said she wanted both on there because she eventually wanted to go back there to live with her children once it was remodeled.

Mrs. Martinez said she drove by the trailer every day to get to work, and Mr. Martinez was there, even after his sentencing.

On cross-examination, Mr. Van Zandt began by asking about the Mariani Company address that was listed on one of the restraining orders. He pointed out that 10 Abbey Street is nowhere to be found on the restraining order, which is where he was found on the April 8 date applying for a job. At that address, there are employees of Horizon offices, who hire temporary employees for Mariani.

Mr. Van Zandt said that there is a sign saying “Horizon Personnel Services,” and Mrs. Martinez claimed there is also a sign that says “Mariani Company.” To prove that Mrs. Martinez does not work at 10 Abbey Street, Mr. Van Zandt made sure she does not have an office in that building and she was not there that day.

Mrs. Martinez said she does not have a fixed work place. It takes about ten minutes to walk from Abbey Street to Dutton Street, which is where the main office is located. Mr. Van Zandt pointed out the distance, because on the restraining order it says that Mr. Martinez cannot be within 100 yards of Mrs. Martinez.

He continued to question her about their divorce and the property she sought. Mrs. Martinez testified that she wanted the trailer, the Chevy Traverse, and sole and full custody of their children. The defense pointed that, when the trailer was bought, the defendant was employed by Mariani Nut Company, doing seasonal work. Mrs. Martinez also testified that she wants full custody of her children because that is what her children want.

Ending his cross-examination, Mr. Van Zandt asked if there were any threats made on April 5 or April 8 and Mrs. Martinez said there were not, only in January. He also pointed out that the intent was not to approach anywhere Mrs. Martinez was going to be working, and that his client never threatened the company.

The People called Maria Castro as their next witness. She works at Mariani Nut Company with the alleged victim, in the Human Relations Department. Ms. Castro was the one to initially request a restraining order for the employee. It was a workplace restraining order for the protection of Mrs. Martinez. She described an altercation in the parking lot of Mariani’s on January 25. From her understanding, the restraining order was supposed to keep Mr. Martinez away from all of Mariani property.

Ms. Castro was notified by an onsite manager working at 10 Abbey Street. The manager said that Mr. Martinez was on the property and she said she immediately notified the police.

Mr. Van Zandt asked the witness if 10 Abbey Street is further than 100 yards from the main office, and she said it was. He had her read the restraining order to look for the exact wording of where it is Mr. Martinez is allowed or not allowed. It says that Mr. Martinez must not come within 100 yards of the protected person. He said that Mrs. Martinez was not working on April 8, and Ms. Castro said she was not sure, but she was sure she was not at the 10 Abbey Street location that day.

The next witness was Officer Justin Wilson. He was working for Winters Police Department on the day of April 8, 2013. Mr. Martinez, he said, was taken to jail because he was on the property and was allegedly violating his restraining order.  Mr. Wilson said he was under the impression that the people working inside at 10 Abbey Street were Mariani employees. He also testified that Mr. Martinez was filling out a job application at the time and was cooperative.

Their eldest son was called to the witness stand next. Out of respect for his age, counsel kept his testimony short. He testified that his father, Mr. Martinez, had been to his school a few times and he would be pulled out of class in order to talk with him. He also said he would ignore him if he saw him around town.

Jesus Martinez, who is the father of the alleged victim, took the stand. He said that his daughter is living with them, along with his grandchildren. He also testified that Juan Martinez is not allowed at his home because he causes problems and does not behave well. He also said that his behavior has affected the eldest son the most.

After a long day of testimony, the jury trial ended for the day and will resume again tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. Closing arguments are expected to be heard.

Categories: