A Yolo County jury convicted Jeffrey Lemus of voluntary manslaughter on Friday, after quickly acquitting him of first and second degree murder. It was a blow to prosecutors who had sought first degree murder charges, arguing that Mr. Lemus killed Kelly Choate in December 2015, willfully, deliberately and with premeditation, following a long series of skirmishes and a long-running dispute.
The prosecutor argued that Mr. Lemus, after seeing Mr. Choate at Kenny’s Bar & Grill in Woodland, attempted to bait Choate into the bathroom and, when that didn’t work, Lemus lured Choate to the bar entrance, where he stabbed the victim.
The defense argued it was self-defense after Mr. Choate had publicly humiliated and threatened Mr. Lemus. They argued that Mr. Lemus believed his life to be in danger, and that if he didn’t kill Choate, Choate would kill him. This was backed by an eyewitness who heard Choate threaten that he was going to kill Lemus.
The jury split the difference, finding that the act was not premeditated, but also not self-defense. Mr. Lemus still faces up to 11 years in prison during the sentencing phase.
Previous Story
In December of 2015, Jeffrey Lemus stabbed Kelly Choate to death in Kenny’s Bar & Grill in Woodland. The Yolo County District Attorney’s office has charged Mr. Lemus with first degree murder. Defense attorney Ron Johnson of the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office maintains that the act was self-defense. The trial lasted just under two court weeks, with a week off in between, and here is the Vanguard’s dual coverage of the closing arguments.
Closing Arguments
By Prince Sahota
In the trial of The People v. Jeffery Lemus, both the prosecution and defense presented their closing arguments in a case where the defendant is accused of first degree murder in the stabbing death of Kelly Choate in Kenny’s Bar & Grill. Both lawyers compared their understanding of the facts to the official jury instructions read to the jury this same day.
The prosecutor stood before the jury and presented his case. He started by declaring that defendant Lemus had a plan to kill Mr. Choate. He reviewed alleged facts and statements to that effect. The prosecutor noted that Lemus sat outside of the bar for twelve minutes after an argument with Mr. Choate, fulfilling the premeditation requirement for murder in the first degree. The prosecutor paraphrased that Mr. Choate said he would harm the defendant, thus making the defendant upset.
The prosecutor continued by reviewing past fights between Kelly Choate and Jeffrey Lemus. He stated that, while Mr. Choate was aggressive, he never threatened the life of defendant Lemus. He declared that Mr. Lemus carried an 18-inch knife or “short sword.” Further, he stated that the defendant crouched in the bathroom of the bar and waited to lure Mr. Choate in and kill him. Witness “DP” described the defendant’s behavior as threatening.
The prosecutor noted that both Mr. Lemus and Mr. Choate purposefully walked toward each other within the mutual combat legal theory. He pointed out that the defendant was walking with his knife, the alleged murder weapon.
The prosecutor revisited self defense, saying that people have the right to defend themselves if their lives are in present danger. In these situations, deadly force can be used to stay safe. He restated that Kelly Choate did not present a danger even if he was carrying his concealed fishing knife on the night of the incident. Thus, the defendant could not claim he had the right to practice self defense.
The prosecutor wanted to counter the heat of passion legal theory, a lesser charge to first degree murder. In this scenario somebody heightens another’s emotions, making that person act rashly. He tried to contradict this by declaring the defendant’s lack of emotion after the stabbing incident.
Subsequently, the prosecutor focused on second degree murder. According to this theory a human being must have taken the life of another human being, premeditated the act, and didn’t care for human life. He asked the jury to refer to the facts he already alleged.
The prosecutor turned the jury’s attention to the highest legal charge, first degree murder. Prosecution stated the requirement which includes the willful, deliberate, or premeditated killing of another human being. The prosecutor asserted that defendant Lemus did premeditate when he sat outside of the bar for twelve minutes, knowing of Choate’s presence. He continued by saying the defendant was sick of Choate and behaved aggressively by walking to the bathroom and waiting to attack him.
The prosecution brought the court’s attention to the surveillance footage which documented the incident. He stated that Kelly was passive in light of the defendant’s aggressiveness. In looking at the stabbing, the prosecutor stressed that defendant Lemus lunged forward to Choate with the 18-inch knife and stabbed.
Next, the defense lawyer stood before the court and jury to lay out a different perspective in this case. He declared that the prosecutor ignored meaningful evidence.
The defense lawyer critiqued the combative history between Choate and defendant Lemus. He argued that the alleged victim in this case was the aggressor, rather than his client. He mentioned that Choate was held back from fighting in the past. Defense argued that Choate carried his knife often.
On the night of the incident at the bar, the defense argued, Choate yelled that it was the defendant’s time, while carrying his own knife. Further, the defense lawyer said that Choate was high on methamphetamine.
The defense lawyer argued that the defendant had a peaceful history. In contrast, he said it was the victim who had the history of spousal abuse, brandishing a gun, and assaulting a nurse.
Defense counsel reviewed the same surveillance and drew unique conclusions from that of the prosecutor. He declared that Mr. Choate said he would get the defendant. He determined that Mr. Lemus acted normally while entering the bar after sitting outside.
The defense lawyer said witnesses remember Mr. Choate yelling. He maintained that his client said that he had the knife ready if Mr. Choate started trouble. He asserted that the defendant tried to leave the bar but was met by Mr. Choate. The defense wanted the jury to know that the knife was closed when Choate was being punched in the face.
The defense tried to contradict the prosecution’s idea that the defendant was emotionless after the stabbing, by stating the defendant felt sick after learning that Mr. Choate passed away. He said that the defendant’s plan to kill inside of a bar full of witnesses was unbelievable.
In the matter of self defense, the defense lawyer contended that Choate’s past aggression made Lemus feel like he would have to defend himself.
The prosecutor gave a final statement in rebuttal. He discussed witnesses expressing fear of the defendant. He accepted that Mr. Choate was a person who made bad choices, but that he was only aggressive in response to threats. Lastly, he requested that the jury return a first degree murder verdict. The jury is deliberating.
by Tiffany Yeh
Jeffrey Lemus is charged with murder and with an enhancement for the personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon.
Before closing arguments in the Jeffrey Lemus trial, both attorneys stipulated that victim Kelly Choate had four misdemeanor convictions. The convictions were: exhibiting a firearm in a rude, threatening way in April 1992, an infliction of corporal injury on the mother of a child in October 1995, a vandalism charge ($400 or more) in Nov. 2006, and a battery w/ injury on EMT related personnel (a registered nurse) while the nurse was giving life-saving services in May 2011.
The options that the jury has are: 1st degree murder (willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation), 2nd degree murder (expressed or implied malice), and voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter applies if the defendant was provoked. Two ways that voluntary manslaughter can come in are: 1. If the defendant killed because of a sudden quarrel or in heat of passion 2. If the defendant killed in imperfect self-defense. (Self-defense can come in two forms: perfect self-defense or imperfect self-defense.)
Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes argued that Jeffrey Lemus had a plan that morphed when his original plan did not work out, and that Lemus came into the bar for one specific reason: to kill Kelly Choate. He interpreted the 12 minutes when Lemus sat outside Kenny’s Bar, at the patio area, as Lemus steaming and stewing after a verbal altercation; thus, Lemus thought about what he was going to do to Kelly.
Mr. Hasapes argued that Lemus went into the bathroom and tried to lure Kelly into the bathroom. That plan did not work—Kelly did not go into the bathroom but witnesses “DP” and “RE” went in there and both said things to Lemus to try to calm him down.
Before the bathroom scene, outside the bathroom, RE spoke to Lemus, and Mr. Hasapes stated that Lemus did not want to shake RE’s hand (and that RE tried to hug Lemus), and Mr. Hasapes interpreted that as aggression on Lemus’s part.
In the bathroom, Lemus stood in a “bladed stance” (Mr. Hasapes seemed fond of this phrase) and stared at the entrance of the bathroom, waiting for Kelly. He pointed the knife aggressively when speaking to DP and RE.
Lemus stepped out of the bathroom, beckoned to Kelly first, let’s go to the door first, then Kelly pounded his chest, pointed to the bathroom area, and then met Lemus at the front.
Mr. Hasapes described the six-second clubbing that Lemus gave to Kelly with a closed knife and then the stabbing right after. He stated that Lemus did not give Kelly a chance to defend himself and that Lemus did not in good faith try to stop fighting.
Mr. Hasapes stated that Kelly had his two fists in front of himself and back-peddled his hands in a circular motion, with Irish boxing steps, and backed away from Lemus. Lemus stepped forward and stabbed the left side heart area of Kelly. Blood poured out like a “water hose” – Mr. Hasapes said that Lemus stabbed the “most deadly area of (Kelly’s) body.”
He described the knife that Lemus used as an 18-inch-long knife, and described it as a “sword” at one point. The knife was 9-10 inches long when closed.
The defendant did not try to withdraw from the fight, did not give Kelly a chance to stop fighting, and “guaranteed [Kelly] six seconds of life before taking away his life.” After Lemus clubbed Kelly, Kelly pushed back in the neck area and Lemus was halfway out of the door.
Mr. Hasapes described the events as mutual combat because Lemus invited the defendant to the front door, and they both came and agreed to a fist fight. Lemus intentionally provoked Kelly to be able to have an excuse to use force himself and claim self-defense. Lemus’ first plan to lure Kelly into the bathroom did not work so he came up with a plan B of getting Kelly to the parking lot.
Mr. Hasapes urged the jury to find Lemus guilty of first degree murder.
Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson had a very different interpretation of the surveillance footage of that night and the actions between Kelly and Lemus. He called Mr. Hasapes’ interpretations of evidence “absurd.”
Lemus was threatened repeatedly by Kelly, on multiple occasions. People had to hold Kelly back from Lemus at other times.
Mr. Johnson stated that Lemus was already at the bar when Kelly later came in. Kelly yelled at Lemus, “I’m going to get you, m-f-, it’s your time.” He also screamed as Lemus entered the bathroom. Kelly was intoxicated and “high on meth” and was a threat to Lemus.
After the threat from Kelly and the pointing by Kelly at Lemus, Kelly bounced the door of the bar in an “angry manner” and was agitated. Lemus then went outside for 12 minutes.
Lemus later saw witness “RE” and shook his hand.
Mr. Johnson described Lemus with his knife held open, at his side, “for protection, in case Kelly came and attacked him.” Lemus did not try to draw Kelly into the bathroom. Mr. Johnson said that lying in wait in the bathroom at a bar to kill someone is not the easiest way – there are witnesses everywhere and video cameras in the bathroom. Lemus did not plan to kill Kelly.
If anything, if Lemus had been planning to kill Kelly, it would have been a lot smarter to wait outside the bar, in the darkness, for Kelly to come out of the bar, and then kill Kelly.
Mr. Johnson stated that Lemus told either RE or witness “DP” that “if he [Kelly] starts s–, I got this (knife).” This shows that the killing was not planned, but was self defense.
When Lemus came out of the bathroom, Kelly started “screaming at him again.” Lemus made a gesture at Kelly (akin to a f– you sign) and then walked to the exit, wanting to leave the bar.
Near the front door is when the fight happened. Lemus walked to the front door, Kelly then followed (in fact, ran to meet) Lemus.
When Lemus punched Kelly, the knife was still closed, Kelly’s hands were on Lemus’ chest. Lemus started backing out the door. Mr. Johnson stated that, because Lemus tried to back out the door, he maintains the right to self defense. Kelly came back at him, and the punches started. They pushed each other at the same time. The stab was a “single lunge with the knife, (he) backs up, and leaves… he doesn’t twist” the knife and there were not multiple stabs.
After 12 minutes, Lemus returned to the scene, handed the police his ID and turned himself in. When later Lemus was told that Kelly had passed, he “felt sick, felt like throwing up” – he did not intend for that to happen. It’s “pretty clear that it’s not a first degree murder.”
Mr. Johnson stated that a witness “Ms. H” has known Lemus for 20-plus years and has been serving him at the bar and had “nothing but good things to say” about Lemus, stating that he was a “mellow” and “calm” guy. She never heard him raise his voice. Johnson stated that the testimony of another witness “RV” about Lemus attacking Kelly, resulting in a cut on Kelly’s ear, was in conflict with what other witnesses said.
Peacefulness by itself can “create reasonable doubt,” the defense stated, and Lemus’ lack of a rap sheet spoke about Lemus’ character. On the other hand, Kelly could get violent when he was drunk. When drunk and seeing Lemus, Kelly would become crazy and try to start fights with Lemus. On other times, there was RE or another person or people to stop Kelly.
Mr. Johnson cited witness JM’s testimony about an event in 2011 when “Kelly takes out his knife and threatens him.” Also, Kelly had a conviction for having his gun out in an angry manner in the past.
Spousal abuse, vandalism, and battery on a nurse are other things Kelly had been convicted of. The nurse “has no bone to pick with anyone” and was not friends with Kelly or Lemus. Kelly’s hands were tied as he lying on a bed and when the nurse untied his hands, Kelly tried to “bite the nurse’s ear off.” This was at the ER.
Mr. Johnson urged the jury to “consider all the evidence” and to “challenge the government’s case.” He urged them to “only convict if there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” He urged them to find that Lemus acted in self-defense.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Hasapes argued that it was mutual combat between Lemus and Kelly. He stated that Lemus “entered in (to the bar) forcefully,” “made a threat on the patio” and took a knife and “sheared through the heart” of Kelly Choate.
Kelly walked in the door, pushed the door open with his right hand, made a threat to Lemus, for a fist fight. Jeff Lemus was outside for 12 minutes, planning, and forcefully got off the table, “as if on a mission.”
Lemus looked left and right in the bar, talked to RE, and was aggressive, not shaking RE’s hand. Lemus walked toward the bathroom, pointing toward Kelly. Kelly Choate was yelling because he was provoked.
Mr. Hasapes stated that DP was inconsistent and that memory fades over time. He demonstrated what happened during the fight.
Mr. Hasapes, dramatically and out of the blue, hit his own head a few times with the closed knife (that Lemus used) to demonstrate Lemus “clubbing” Kelly’s head, to the cries of a female relative or family member of Kelly’s.
He put on Kelly’s belt and fishing sheath. He stated that it took four or five seconds for Kelly to remove his knife from its sheath (on the right buttocks area).
Mr. Hasapes also opened up the knife, showing it to the jurors and proclaiming it to be “gigantic.”
Jurors were handed the case to deliberate around 3:30pm on Thursday, May 19. Will they buy into the “morphed plan” theory of Mr. Hasapes, or the self-defense and stand-your-ground theory of Mr. Johnson?
