By Christina Day
On the first day of jury trial on July 25, 2016, the prosecution and defense both gave opening statements regarding Luke Ulricksen’s prowling charge, violation of California Penal Code section 647(h). According to the testimonies of three witnesses, the defendant was loitering at 12:30am, on someone’s lawn in a neighborhood not his own. A tire iron and pocket knife with an open blade were found lying on the ground next to Mr. Ulricksen at the scene. (More details on the first day of jury trial can be found in a previous Vanguard article.)
On July 26, 2016, the second day of trial, the jury drew inferences beyond reasonable doubt solely on circumstantial evidence presented, and unanimously reached a verdict of guilty as charged for the defendant Luke Ulricksen.
At the beginning of the court session, before calling the jury into the Department 13 courtroom, Judge Paul Richardson granted the prosecution’s motion in limine (requesting a court ruling limiting evidence the other side can present at trial). It excluded from trial Mr. Ulricksen’s statement to law enforcement, which contained his supposed reason for being out and about in the middle of the night in a neighborhood other than his own.
Then the jury was called in, and the court resumed, from the day before, the witness testimony by Corporal Francisco DeLeon. He testified that he was the first officer on the scene, arriving around five minutes after he was dispatched. Upon arrival, DeLeon found Ulricksen still in the same location on the street. According to DeLeon, he could not recall whether Ulricksen seemed pale, but said that the defendant did not appear worried, scared or nervous at the time. Corporal DeLeon also confirmed that Ulricksen complied with orders and answered all questions when he arrived on the scene, as previously mentioned his statement in the first day of trial. After Ulricksen was detained, DeLeon tried to obtain a better understanding of the situation, and didn’t see any signs of crime or upset in the vicinity.
During questioning, Deputy DA Jonathan Sanity approached the stand, showed the witness a tire iron and received confirmation that it was the same one found in the street with Ulricksen. Then Sanity showed DeLeon a knife, and asked if it was closed when found. DeLeon answered that the knife was open with the blade exposed and, when requested by Sanity, he opened the knife to show the court. DeLeon testified that, although he was first on the scene, the investigating and arresting officer was Officer Lyssa Gomez. As the first officer on the scene, he was responsible for securing safety and preventing injuries. Meanwhile, the investigating officer usually does more detailed investigations. He said Gomez did have a conversation with the reporting party (the first witness, “DR”), and conducted the now-Mirandized interview with the defendant. Gomez also bagged and booked all the evidence, and was the one who arrested Ulricksen.
The last and fourth witness, Officer Gomez, was then called to the stand. She stated that she has been a police officer for eight years, and has had investigation, traffic, and other trainings. On March 1, 2016, she was in full police uniform in a marked car when she responded to a call about a suspicious male looking in windows and carrying a tire iron. She arrived on the scene, where DeLeon and another officer had already detained Ulricksen and put him in handcuffs. Gomez said she saw no one else walking around on the street. When interviewing Ulricksen, she obtained his address and also learned that he had a truck, which was parked in the street. She estimated that it would take around 10 minutes by car to get from Ulricksen’s neighborhood to the alleged crime scene. Gomez also confirmed the presence of the tire iron and knife, but gave no testimony as to where they were found.
In cross-examination by Deputy Public Defender Quincey-Kaye Bourgeois, Gomez confirmed that she didn’t find any weapon or illegal items on Ulricksen’s person, nor any lock pick, wire cutter, or flashlight. She didn’t find any evidence of crime in the area either.
On re-direct, the prosecution asked Gomez if she thought the tire iron and knife could be used as weapons, based on her experience and training as an officer, and even though neither item is illegal. Gomez answered in the affirmative. Gomez was cross-examined again, and testified that Ulricksen claimed to have stopped his truck in the neighborhood to avoid a group of people who were chasing him.
Ulricksen chose to exercise his right to remain silent based on the 5th Amendment, and did not give testimony.
Judge Richardson then read out the jury instructions, and noted that the charge of prowling requires the union of act and intent or mental state. According to jury instruction, CALCRIM No. 2915, when charged with loitering, the defendant must have:
- Delayed, lingered, prowled, or wandered on private property.
- Had no lawful purpose to be there.
- Intended to commit a crime if the opportunity arose.
- Had been on property for the purpose of committing a crime if the opportunity arose.
Closing statements then began with the People, because they had the burden of proof. Ulricksen would remain innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Sanity listed all the facts that support a guilty verdict: Ulricksen had two potential weapons in his possession; he was wandering on someone else’s property at 12:30am with an open blade; and he was leering into windows. Sanity argued that the most reasonable inference would be that Ulricksen was “up to no good.” He said that prowling is an interesting case because it happens before anything bad happens, so that one can only draw reasonable elements.
DDA Sanity argued: Ulricksen was prowling because Witness 1, “DR,” testified that he saw the act. Ulricksen had no lawful purpose to be present, at odd time and when it was dark outside with no lights. He intended to commit a crime based on the circumstantial evidence, including the nearby presence of a tire iron and knife. And Officer Gomez’s testimony that Ulricksen’s truck was on the street, only a 10-minute drive away from his residence, proves that his purpose was to commit a crime if the opportunity arose.
The defense attorney then gave her closing statement. Ms. Bourgeois emphasized that the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in order to charge the defendant as guilty, meaning that there will not be any doubts on the matter even a year from the trial. She also emphasized, in the jury instruction on circumstantial evidence, that the jury must conclude there was no required intent if they found at least one reasonable conclusion supporting that.
Bourgeois argued that the People did not have enough circumstantial evidence to prove a crime. She then presented evidence for proving Ulricksen’s innocence: He had parked his truck to avoid a group of people he believed were chasing him. He was 10-12 feet away from the windows he was leering into, and it was also dark and hard to see in. He actively engaged with DR, asking if DR lived at the residence they were in front of. DR didn’t feel threatened or afraid, and never saw anything in Ulricksen’s hand. Ulricksen didn’t try to hide, and waited right under the one bright streetlight until the police arrived, even though he had five minutes to make a run for it. He was cooperative and compliant, and the officers didn’t find any evidence of crime after searching the area.
Rebuttal by the People emphasized the potential of a tire iron and knife as weapons of a crime. It may be legal to possess those items, but it is not legal to prowl with purpose and intent. Sanity acknowledged that the jury can’t get into the mind of the defendant, and thus must make reasonable inferences instead. It is reasonable to conclude that Ulricksen was at the scene to commit some crime, the nature of which the prosecution need not prove.
After being in deliberation for nearly three hours, the jury asked for a read back of Witness 1 DR’s testimony. They also had a question on the legal differences between intent and purpose to commit a crime. The judge and attorney did not answer, but asked the jury to reread the jury instruction No. 2915. After another hour, the jury finally reached a verdict of guilty. The defense had the jury polled and, with that, the trial ended.
