By Madison Whittemore
MODESTO, CA – A preliminary hearing Monday in Stanislaus County Superior Court for a man charged with mayhem—the intentional maiming of another person—and two counts of assault after he allegedly bit a property trespasser on the chin.
According to a Stanislaus deputy who arrived on scene after the biting incident took place, an altercation previously broke out between two men (the accused and the victim) after the victim trespassed onto the accused’s property.
The accused asked the man to leave because he had noticed there had been some items missing from his property and suggested the victim might be responsible for this.
Despite being asked, the alleged victim refused to leave and a physical altercation began when the accused allegedly struck the victim four times with a closed fist. As the two men fell to the ground, the accused allegedly bit the victim on the chin, which resulted in an “open wound where the skin was separated,” according to the Deputy.
However, according to private defense counsel Frederick Krueger, the accused’s actions did not cause enough “permanent damage” to the victim, and the accused should not be charged with mayhem but, at most, assault.
“The code section for mayhem requires…that you remove a part of someone’s body. There’s no allegation that a part of someone’s body is removed in that instance,” defense attorney Krueger asserted, explaining to Judge Shawn Bessy why the prosecution had not met the burden of proof for a mayhem charge.
According to the prosecutor, just based on the fact that there was a “divot” of flesh removed from the complaining witness’s chin by the accused, this “missing skin, missing flesh” was probable cause enough to charge the accused with mayhem.
But defense attorney Krueger remained adamant about the prosecution’s lack of probable cause, emphasizing how the statute for mayhem is not as broad as the prosecutor is framing it to be.
“If the court was to grant that mayhem has been achieved here under a probable cause standard it is essentially saying that any time during a fight a person gets cut, the People have met their burden,” defense attorney Krueger pointed out, appealing to Judge Bessey to not issue a holding order on the mayhem charge.
It was also noted by defense attorney Krueger the complaining witness’s chin injury healed naturally which does not fall under the definition of a mayhem charge since it did not result in “permanent disfigurement.”
Defense attorney Krueger concluded by noting the incident itself was not substantial enough evidence to hold the accused on a mayhem charge since the complaining witness/victim, who was the only direct witness, was illegally trespassing and therefore may not be a reliable witness.
“The court can believe (the complaining witness’s) versions of events which I think are somewhat suspect considering that all parties admit that he (the complaining witness) was in a place where he was asked to leave and refused to leave,” Krueger explained.
Despite defense attorney Krueger’s attempts to persuade Judge Bessey to not hold the accused on the mayhem charge, Judge Bessey maintained the charges in the complaint have been committed on all three counts, including the mayhem count.
Judge Bessey stated that because the accused removed flesh from the complaining witness’s chin via biting, this was “sufficient for a holding order for mayhem.”
The case will remain as is until Nov. 15, when the accused will be arraigned on all three charges.
