By Leslie Alonzo
On October 2, 2019, codefendants sat for a car show they participated in two years ago.
The codefendants were charged with vandalism, aiding and abetting, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault causing great bodily injury. Counsel for one of the defendants asked the court if it would be willing to dismiss all the charges against Mr. Anderson and, if not, whether it would consider reducing all the charges to misdemeanors instead of felonies.
The defense stated that the defendant was riding his motorcycle and believed that the complaining witness was trying to “side swipe” one of his friends on a motorcycle. A third vehicle then blocked the complaining witness, forcing him to pull over. The defendant then walked over to the complaining witness’s passenger window and punched the window, causing it to shatter. Then other friends of the defendant intervened and the defendant drove away.
Counsel for the defendant addressed the issue of whether the act of punching a window is aiding and abetting an assault that happened later. Defense argued that it is not aiding and abetting, and all of the defendant’s acts were misdemeanor acts and should therefore be reduced. The defendant has no record, has never been arrested, is a 25-year-old law abiding citizen, and works.
The assistant district attorney (ADA) argued that defendant and his friends created a situation where they forced citizens driving on an active freeway to be a part of their slide show. ADA argued that just because the defendant stopped after he shattered the complaining witness’s window does not change the fact that his act instigated the attack on the complaining witness. The ADA stated that for the aiding and abetting charges the court should consider the defendant leaving the scene as guilt for instigating the violent attack. The ADA also argued that the court must consider that the defendant caused the complaining witness to exit the vehicle.
Ultimately, Judge Stephens denied the motions.
Counsel for the other defendant went off the record and presented the video of the incident to Judge Stephens and the ADA. The defense argued that the video shows the complaining witness swerving into the motorcyclists and cutting them off. The video does not show this second defendant near the complaining witness. There is an altercation with another individual and this second defendant is seen getting on his bike. Defense argued that there is no assault seen in the video.
The ADA argued that, regardless of the video, the defendants and his friends boxed the complaining witness in, preventing him from exiting the freeway, and they instigated a situation that led to the attack on the complaining witness.
Judge Stephens dismissed the great bodily injury charge but kept the other ones.
