Defendant Claims He Did Not Know Vehicle Was Stolen

By Sarah Gregory

The defense in the case against Joshua Matthew Savage argued that the defendant was too drunk to comprehend that the vehicle he was driving had been stolen.

The trial of Mr. Savage began on the morning of July 12, 2016.  The trial involves an incident where the defendant was found driving a stolen vehicle, and with a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) above the legal limit.  The defendant was charged with motor vehicle theft, driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license.

The defendant is being represented by the Yolo County Public Defender’s office.

The prosecutor led the opening statements.  He assured the jury that the case was straightforward and that all each member of the jury had to decide was whether or not the defendant knew that the vehicle he was driving had been stolen.

In the early morning hours of January 18, 2016, the defendant was found, by Officer Raymond Barrantes of the West Sacramento Police Department, driving a stolen vehicle with two passengers.  While searching the vehicle, officers found the key that was jammed into the ignition to be a Toyota key, whereas the vehicle that was being driven was a Honda.

Upon closer inspection, the keys dangling from the ignition were found to be shaved keys.  A shaved key is a car key that has been shaved or ground down on either the sides or the face.  Such a key will work by fitting into the vehicle’s ignition and fooling the ignition system into believing it’s the original key.

The arresting officers found two sets of keys in the vehicle.  One was the set stuck in the ignition and the other was lying on the back floorboard.  The former is suspected of belonging to one of the passengers in the vehicle, “JC.”

Next, the defense began her opening statement by arguing that the defendant had no idea the vehicle involved was stolen, and reminding the jury that the defendant deserves a presumption of innocence from each member until proven otherwise.

The prosecution called the owner of the vehicle, “NM.”  She testified that her vehicle was stolen from the parking lot at her workplace.

NM was notified her car was found, five days after it was stolen.  While inspecting her vehicle, she found that it had been partially stripped.  The radio, jumper cables, spare tire, and contents of the glove box and center console had all been taken.

The prosecutor asked NM if she knew anybody in the courtroom, as the defendant was present.  She stated that she did not.  The prosecutor also asked if she had given anyone permission to drive her vehicle prior to when she found it had been stolen.  Again, she answered in the negative.

The prosecutor called his second witness, Officer Barrantes. He began by establishing the officer’s credibility as a police officer.  The officer was asked to draw a map of the route he took to pursue the vehicle the defendant was found in, and the process he observed which led him to the arrest of the defendant.

Through his training, Officer Barrantes was taught to check the validity of as many license plates he came across, daily.  This habit, rather than a suspicious set of behavior, prompted the officer to run the vehicle’s license plate through a database.  The results confirmed that the vehicle had been stolen.  The officer was driving in the opposite direction of the defendant and decided to make a U-turn and pursue the vehicle.

Before the officer had a chance to turn on his patrol car’s lights, the defendant made an abrupt right turn and pulled over to a complete stop.  The officer placed the vehicle at gunpoint and ordered the occupants to slowly exit the vehicle and walk backwards toward him with their hands raised above them.

The officer then called for backup.  In less than a minute, five other units arrived at the scene.

The defendant was placed in the back of Officer Barrante’s patrol car and two other officers were tasked to question the two passengers separately.

The prosecutor then asked the officer about the defendant’s physical and mental state at the time of the arrest.  The officer stated that the defendant appeared drunk.  A few indicators were the defendant’s inability to focus, slurred speech and staggering gait.

The defendant reportedly reeked of alcohol. Normally, the officer would have administered a field sobriety test at the scene.  However, the harsh wind and rain at the time prevented him from doing so.  The officer drove the defendant back to the police department and administered a PAS (Preliminary Alcohol Screening).

The officer had the defendant take the PAS twice.  The legal alcohol limit is 0.08 percent BAC.  The defendant’s BAC percentages in the two tests were 0.10 percent and 0.11 percent.

The officer had asked the defendant how much alcohol he had consumed. The defendant had replied that he had consumed only two 16-oz. bottles of Sparks Lemonade, a hard malt liquor, about 20 minutes before driving.

The prosecutor presented both sets of keys found in the vehicle as evidence to the court.  He asked Officer Barrantes to verify the authenticity of the keys and explain how he knew the key found in the ignition was shaved.  The officer replied that the grinding marks and discoloration indicated that the Toyota key found in the ignition was indeed a shaved key.

The officer indicated he had questioned the defendant at the scene as to where he found the vehicle.  The defendant stated that he borrowed the car from a friend named Rob at a house somewhere on Park Avenue in West Sacramento. The defendant was unsure of Rob’s last name and the address of the home where he met him.

The third witness was Angela Stroman, a forensic analyst at the California DOJ (Department of Justice) Sacramento Laboratory.  Some of her duties include the maintenance of PAS machines and documentation of breath samples.

The prosecutor verified she had checked the accuracy of the defendant’s PAS results.

The defense cross-examined the witness and inquired about the different stages of drunkenness.  Ms. Stroman stated that the first thing to become impaired while drinking is focus, the second is fine motor skills and the third is major motor skills, such as walking.  Even after all of these impairments, there is another point, with enough high alcohol concentration in a person’s system, where the brain stops producing memories.  The defense stated that this is the cause of the defendant’s spotty memory of the day of the arrest.

Judge Daniel Maguire granted the court a lunch break.  After the break, the court reconvened to resume the examination of Officer Barrantes.  The defense, in cross-examination, asked the officer about his knowledge of a Sacramento Public Library key card hanging from the set of keys found in the ignition.

The officer stated that he knew it was there but never had the inclination to research the owner. The officer was surprised when the defense stated that the key card belonged to one of the passengers, “JC,” in the vehicle that night.

The defense called their first witness, Alec Miller, another West Sacramento Police Department officer who had been helping with the defendant’s arrest that night.  Officer Miller verified a still photo of the passenger JC in the back of his patrol car.

The defense’s final witness, “VL,” was called.  The witness stated that she was the mother of the defendant.  The last place she saw the defendant was several houses down from her own around twilight.

The defense inquired into the defendant’s state at the time.  VL responded that the defendant was drunk.  She stated that a man, that she assumed was a friend of her son’s, was with the defendant.  She identified one of the passengers, JC, as the same man.

The prosecutor cross-examined VL in an attempt to discredit her previous statements.  The prosecutor asked if she and her son had spoken about the arrest since that night.  She replied that the defendant did confide in her that he hardly remembers anything about that day because of his drunken state.

VL began to cry.  The prosecutor observed that she seemed to care deeply for the defendant.  She replied, “Of course, he’s my son.”

Categories:

Tags: