By Novpreet Shoker
After so many weeks, the trial for Steven Hendrix is finally coming to an end as closing arguments were given by both sides of counsel. The jury has been sent into deliberation, with Hendrix facing a multitude of charges, including 2nd degree murder, vehicular manslaughter, driving under the influence, and child endangerment, as well as enhancements from previous convictions.
The hearing resumed with Deputy DA Amanda Zambor summarizing the main motives behind the charges placed against Steven Hendrix, who remains in Yolo County custody. She went on to describe the defendant’s mental and physical impairments that were the direct result of being under the influence of not only marijuana, but methamphetamine as well.
DDA Zambor also went further into depth about how Hendrix’s actions illustrate strong indications of gross negligence. She claimed Hendrix acted recklessly, and had knowledge of the high risk he was posing by driving in the manner that he did on the night of February 24, 2016. She also made it clear that the irresponsible actions by Hendrix resulted in the unwarranted death of 72-year-old Cynthia Jonasen.
As for the 2nd degree murder charge, DA Zambor clarified the reasoning behind urging this conviction. She explained to the jury that Hendrix committed an act that not only resulted in a woman’s death, but also conveyed malice aforethought.
Hendrix’s driving patterns, along with his intoxication, show that there was “implied” malice. It was not a mistake, DA Zambor reiterated, Hendrix chose to drive the car.
After recapping the many warning signs Hendrix chose to ignore before the collision, DA Zambor ended her argument by stating that Hendrix was cognizant enough to know, but just did not care about the consequences. She emphasized that all of this could have been avoided, but Hendrix chose to proceed with his actions anyway.
Deputy Public Defender Teal Dixon began her closing argument by stressing that this collision was an accident, not a murder. She went on to admit that Hendrix is a flawed man, who is uneducated and homeless. She urged the jury not to let his type of lifestyle influence them into making a rash judgment.
As far as the big picture is concerned, Ms. Dixon asked the jury to consider what has been proved and is not simply theory. She then dove into evidence she believed to be highly circumstantial.
By questioning the credibility of several witnesses, Ms. Dixon created doubt about the testimonies given and how reliable they really were.
Ms. Dixon recounted that a previous expert that was brought in for the case claimed that one’s memory is “malleable.”
Ms. Dixon told the jury, “People will try to fill in where there’s ambiguity in the information.”
As for the actual collision, Ms. Dixon claimed that although Steven Hendrix was speeding, he did not have any intentions of killing anyone.
She claimed that Hendrix believed it was an unspoken understanding between Cynthia Jonasen and him that she would turn off Cantrill and onto Second Street after he passed her by. Ms. Dixon reiterated that Hendrix did not intend to broadside her vehicle, and he definitely did not intend for someone to lose their life.
Ms. Dixon also reviewed Hendrix’s behavior after the collision, noting that he was immediately distraught and remorseful. She continued to elaborate on his demeanor after the accident, after he realized that someone died as a result of his driving, and in the hospital several hours later, where he was placed under arrest.
She asked the jury to consider the extreme amount of stress Hendrix was under after the accident and that, regarding the entirety of the situation, “you’re going to have to take it all with a grain of salt.”
She ended by stating that it is “not proven that he had the knowledge” of someone’s life being at risk. She left the jury with the request of finding Hendrix not guilty, even if it is based on the slightest of doubts.
Judge Paul K. Richardson, presiding over this case, asked for a rebuttal from the People.
DDA Zambor began by responding to Ms. Dixon and clarifying that Hendrix is not facing conviction because of his lifestyle, but because of the poor and irresponsible choices he made.
“There is no doubt he knew his actions were dangerous,” said Ms. Zambor.
She also repeated that Hendrix is facing 2nd degree murder because of implied malice, in which he knew his actions could and would result in “death or grave bodily injury.”
As far as the aftermath of the collision, DA Zambor recounted several witnesses who included in their testimonies that Hendrix displayed pronounced symptoms of being intoxicated.
Ms. Zambor also pointed out that Hendrix’s “remorse didn’t last,” because there were not tears and no indications of sympathy. He also did not ask about the well-being of his children until 10:40 p.m., almost six hours after the collision.
Zambor also made it clear that Hendrix was under the influence of both marijuana and methamphetamine, because he “started smoking as soon as he woke up and didn’t stop.”
The evidence presented throughout the trial also corroborated with the testimonies from several different witnesses, said DDA Zambor, so she refuted Ms. Dixon’s interpretation of the evidence, as well as claiming that Ms. Dixon took isolated pieces of information out of context.
Ms. Zambor ended by explaining to the jury that their duty, although imperative and crucial, is not an “insurmountable standard,” and that if the jury will “employ [their] reason” and “look at everything,” then they will find Steven Hendrix guilty on all charges and enhancements brought forward by the People.
Judge Richardson then allowed the bailiff to escort the jury into deliberation, where eventually a verdict will be determined.
