By Alan Vargas
RIVERSIDE, CA – Riverside County Superior Court Judge Kristi Hester last Friday granted the alleged victim of a domestic violence case the request for a restraining order against her husband after hearing testimony of physical abuse and harassment.
Issac Haso was facing domestic violence and harassment allegations against the victim, and the court was told about incidents previous to June 30 that led to the order.
According to the victim’s testimony, who also happens to be the mother of his daughter, “He kept telling me he wanted to move back into my place…that morning he dropped off my daughter and kind of went like this.”
The judge asked her to clarify what she meant, and the victim explained that the defendant had “thrown an elbow towards her face.”
The victim later revealed that the defendant had come back hours later after that confrontation, “knocked on the door and tried to walk in, and I told him that someone was there. My friend Laura and her son were there, and so was my daughter.”
The victim alleged the defendant choked her for about six seconds.
“He told me then come out. I came out and stood in front of the camera, and he told me to come over there, which was the other side of my front door where there aren’t cameras facing that way, I said no, and I think by the third time he grabbed me by my stomach area and lifted me up and then took me to the side where the cameras are not there, and he choked me, he grabbed me by the neck lifted me up for about six seconds.”
The judge went on to ask the victim if there was anything else that had happened that she would want the court to consider in regard to granting her request, and the victim said “yes.”
The victim declared that the defendant had stalked and harassed her by dropping in unexpectedly and “parking right in front of her car.”
She showed the judge photos of her physical and visible injuries that the defendant allegedly left on the victim, to which the judge said, “So I’ve looked at three photos of the victim’s neck, and you do see some red scratches to the right side of her neck.”
The victim had petitioned to have her daughter included as a protective party on the restraining order. Based on her request, she mentioned that her husband was a threat to her and her daughter and that her daughter had witnessed her father choke her before.
The DA then went on to ask the victim some questions for further cross-examination. The victim alleged to be assaulted, harassed, threatened by phone, text messages, and has had the defendant show up at her home unannounced, also calling her, saying, “You know I am going to kill you one day, right.”
The DA proceeded with questions to the victim concerning previous disputes with the defendant.
Judge Hester quickly interposed, declaring, “I am not overly concerned with the incidents that happened before the prior request for dismissal. I am more concerned with the present conduct. So I am not concerned though I feel that it shows a pattern of behavior by the defendant. ”
The defense attorney next asked the victim if she had ever brought her personal belongings to the house and whether they were engaging in intercourse and if the defendant had bought her birth control pills.
“Isn’t it true you were having intercourse till about this June?” asked the attorney.
The judge stopped the proceedings, and said” unless you are alleging that she engaged in intercourse with him after these most recent incidents, which would show she was not in fear of him, then it’s not relevant.
“If on June 30 of this year which is the most recent allegation of domestic violence, and she is saying that she is afraid of him and wants a restraining order. Thus, you’re going to introduce evidence that between June 30 and today’s court date, she engaged in sexual intercourse with him then that would be something relevant to my decision … if she had sex with him last year at the time that they were trying to reconcile then I am not concerned about that, that’s not relevant to the current request of the restraining order,” said Judge Hester.
The judge then asked, “Is your argument that because she continued to either engage in sexual relationships with him or was going to reconcile with him, it was okay for him to put hands on her throat?”
Next, the defendant was brought in for questioning. The defendant allegedly went to the victim’s house because their daughter had told her father that another man was in their bed. “I was emotionally sad,” mentioned the defendant.
“I asked her if she could come outside because I knew my daughter was inside, and I don’t like arguing in front of my daughter. So when she stepped outside, she leaned against the wall, and I told her I wanted to talk to her and told her to come here, ‘I want to talk to you,’ I pulled my hands around her waist and pulled her towards me,” he explained.
During the examination, the defendant denied any physical altercations prior to the June 30 incident, which gave rise to the restraining order against him.
After hearing the defendant’s testimony, the judge indicated, “You’re kind of justifying your behavior, and that’s what I have an issue with.”
Ultimately, the judge decided to grant the restraining order due to the defendant’s self-incriminating written statements, which reported him “applying pressure to her face.”
Judge Hester proceeded to make her final judgment, “In comparing that with your testimony and what you said in your response, it seems to me that what she’s alleging occurred is more likely to have happened.”
The judge granted the order, but did not include the daughter. The order will be in effect for three years. The restraining order restricts the defendant from harassing, striking, threatening, assaulting or keeping under surveillance, the victim.
The defendant is required to enroll and pay for a 52-week domestic violence intervention program, and must be approved under Penal Code section 1203.097, and must enroll by no later than Aug. 31.
The parties are going to be referred to meet with the child’s custody recommending counselor, and the next available date for mediation is Sept. 30. Parties must come back to court Oct. 14.
