WOODLAND, CA – In a jury trial at Yolo County Superior Court this week, Deputy Public Defender
Stephen James Betz argued in closing a man accused of second-degree felony burglary was innocent
because he was accused of having broken into a locked truck, but only took items from a utility box in
the truck’s bed, not part of the vehicle.
The man is accused of second-degree burglary, loitering on private property, resisting, obstructing, or
delaying a police officer, and possession of burglary tools.
The accused was arrested in a city-owned parking lot May 3, after allegedly using a stolen ID card to
enter the fenced-in lot, taking from utility boxes in the backs of various city-owned vehicles, and
fleeing from police when they arrived on the scene.
Before the jury – which is now in deliberation – was in court, Deputy District Attorney Aloysius
Patchen requested Judge Daniel M. Wolk direct the jury to consider the utility boxes as a part of the
locked vehicles, arguing the distinction between the boxes and the vehicles could be confusing to the
jury.
DPD Betz responded that doing so would be essentially directing a verdict, as the wording second
degree burglary law specifically prohibits breaking into a locked vehicle. DPD Betz argued that
demonstrating the accused did break into a locked vehicle was part of DDA Patchen’s burden of proof
and that it should be up to the people to decide.
DDA Patchen refuted this, arguing the question the jury had to answer should be whether the utility
boxes were locked, not whether they were part of the vehicle.
However, Judge Wolk agreed with DPD Betz and declined to change the terminology surrounding the
utility boxes.
After the jury entered in the courtroom, DDA Patchen briefly called West Sacramento Police Officer
Gerard Romero to the stand, who testified, on the night of the arrest and alleged burglary, he saw the
accused flee and hide under a truck, and found multiple stolen items including pepper spray and an ID
card where the accused had hidden.
After Romero’s testimony concluded, closing arguments began, with DDA Patchen noting there was
video evidence showing the accused “going vehicle to vehicle,” reaching into the utility boxes and
taking out tools, and that both various stolen items and burglary tools (specifically a screwdriver and a
pair of pliers) were found on his person.
DDA Patchen also stated the accused “ran not once but twice” from police, ignoring orders to stop, and
said utility boxes are part of the vehicles, describing them as “truck trunks.”
DPD Betz did not dispute the accused was not allowed to enter the parking lot, that he took items from
the utility boxes, or that he fled when police arrived.
However, Betz argued the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the utility boxes were
locked, or that they were part of the locked pickup trucks.
“The utility box does not sit in the cab of the truck, there is no cover on the bed of the truck, it simply
sits in the back of the truck where anyone can touch it,” said DPD Betz, adding, “When you elect to
lock or unlock the cab of the truck, there is no option to lock or unlock the utility box. Just because this
is a work truck does not transform the utility box into an interior portion of a vehicle.”
DPD Betz also argued that, since officer Romero had stated the accused had been seen crouching
behind a vehicle, and that officers had not approached him with a clear line of sight, he was not guilty
of intentionally fleeing from police.
Instead, DPD Betz maintained, the accused thought he was fleeing from a security guard or an
employee, and stopped once he realized that his pursuers were police officers.
