MODESTO, CA – A man accused of preventing an officer from performing his duty by threat of violence will stand trial for it after a preliminary hearing this week in Stanislaus County Superior Court before Judge Dawna Reeves, despite a motion the charge should be reduced to a misdemeanor from Deputy Public Defender Roxanne Dominguez-Shell.
DPD Dominguez-Shell said the accused was concussed and intoxicated at the time of his arrest, and that the threats in question were only verbal, not physical in nature.
Deputy District Attorney James Langston called the arresting officer, Deputy Salem Moore, as a witness. Deputy Moore testified he was dispatched to the scene of a large physical altercation, where the accused ignored direct instructions, and was arrested.
Deputy Moore stated that in transport to Doctors Medical Center to treat his injuries, the accused stated, “He was going to continue calling 911 with false reports until I showed up so that he could physically attack me.”
During a cross-examination by DPD Sharifi, Deputy Moore admitted the accused was bleeding from his face at the time of the arrest.
Deputy Moore also testified that once at the hospital the accused was very agitated, yelling at him and hospital staff, and was likely intoxicated, and when the accused was threatening him, he was handcuffed and restrained to a medical bed with straps around his shoulders, stomach and legs.
DDA Langston insisted the immediate ability to carry out the threat is not required to charge a felony.
DDA Langston also noted the accused’s history of misdemeanor convictions, including a 2002 battery on a police officer, and a 2004 2nd-degree burglary, with the most recent case being from 2006.
DPD Dominguez-Shell maintained the accused should not have to answer for the charges, given that the threats did not impede Deputy Moore’s duties.
Dominguez-Shell added, “At the time, he was already arrested and admitted to the hospital. He was bleeding from his head at the time and possibly had a concussion. One officer believed that he was under the influence.”
The PD said if the court finds sufficient evidence to charge the accused, it should be a misdemeanor, given the accused never tried to physically harm the deputy, stating, “The threats were only verbal, he did not lunge at the officer, he did not physically fight the officer. He had head injuries at the time and was not well at the time of making those statements.”
DPD Dominguez-Shell argued that prior to this arrest, the accused worked for 12 years as a maintenance worker, and that a dismissal or reduction to a misdemeanor would allow him to return to work. She added the father of five has been a productive citizen ever since his last 2009 conviction.
“For the past 13 years, he has stayed out of trouble and has turned his life around. Ever since having kids. he has been productive until this incident, which happened in June of last year,” continued DPD Dominguez-Shell, noting that since the incident, it has been “almost a year and a few months without any additional law violations or contact with law enforcement.”
Judge Reeves asked why this case has not been resolved, given that the complaint was first filed in September of 2023 before a warrant issued for his arrest, but ultimately held the accused must answer to the felony, not a misdemeanor because of the accused’s prior criminal history, with prior conduct regarding battery on a police officer.
Judge Reeves ruled being under the influence, or believing the situation was unfair, does not justify the repeated threats to the law enforcement officer.
Judge Reeves set the felony pretrial arraignment for Dec. 3.
Judge Dawna Reeves should know better than to continue this case at all, let alone a felony. They cannot under the law (appeals court will reverse slam dunk) this person could not be convicted (under what case law mandates for elements) for a felony. The best and I mean the most the DA could hope for is attempted criminal threats.
Bottom line the officer cannot validate sustained fear element, the prospect of carrying out any threats, and the circumstances element which requires that there be some type of personal knowledge or events occurring before or after this incident that would provide a person with information to believe or not believe that what is being said is a threat that this person would likely carry out, i.e., “he means what he says when making threat.”
The reason circumstances are required is so that a person who out of character and maybe heat of moment doesnt vet charged for somerhing they would never mean and carry out. What is clear is officer did not have any fear let alone required sustained fear (the suspect was in no position to instill fear into anyone.) Officer had no apparent interactions prior to incident or after to justify being reasonably fearful of said threats, and if officer possessed anything it sure did not rise to level required to believe an intoxicated injured person is making threats intended to be real and carried out.
Judge Reeves should be careful making comments such as holding him over to answer for inappropriate felony charge based upon past criminal violations as that is not how the judicial, constitutional, and legal process is pursued. What Judge Reeves did was display prejudice and gave the appearance of inpropriety allowing for her removal from case.