BURBANK, CA – The judge here last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court advocated for an accused, who was facing felony charges, to enter a mental health rehabilitation program after a theft at Target Jan. 26.
The prosecution opposed the judge’s action, citing the accused’s history of misdemeanor theft charges and doubts about her compliance with treatment.
The accused was allegedly caught on surveillance footage stealing multiple items, including, said a Target security guard and a witness, consuming raw red meat inside the store.
“The accused did not pay for the items,” the Target security guard stated, adding the accused took foot rolls, tortillas, and two cell phones before passing the checkout registers.
Deputy District Attorney Jason Maryland questioned the Target security guard about his response to the theft. The Target security guard explained Target’s policy prevented him from intervening, noting, “It wasn’t the first time this had happened,” he stated.
He confirmed that all stolen items were recovered except for the raw red meat the accused had eaten. When asked about the total value of the stolen goods, the Target security guard clarified, “Nothing was lost or stolen, except the raw red meat that was consumed.”
Officer Eion McDonald, a patrol officer with four years of experience, testified he had responded to the call and later found the accused at a bus stop across from the store.
“The accused had no money,” McDonald stated, describing the items in the backpack at the time of the arrest as, “cosmetic items, chocolate, and market foods.”
The prosecution asked whether the accused admitted to taking the items, and the officer responded, “That is correct. The accused had admitted taking the items.”
The prosecution further argued this was not the only incident, pointing out that the accused had prior theft-related misdemeanors in Torrance and San Bernardino.
“I am struggling with how to address this after the witness had mentioned she ate raw red meat,” the judge stated, considering whether to transfer the felony charge to Pasadena or propose to place the accused in a mental health facility.
The prosecution, however, raised objections, questioning the effectiveness of such a diversion.
“How can we make sure the accused gets the mental health care they need, or would even want to seek it?” the prosecution asked.
The prosecution emphasized, “This isn’t her first misdemeanor. How can we know it will be her last?”
Despite the prosecution’s reservations, the court leaned toward mental health intervention, maintaining, “With the program, the accused will have 364 days to recover and earn a dismissal before being released.”
The judge acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns, stating, “I am listening to the evidence, the witnesses, the opportunities, the hearings, the petty thefts. This is not an appropriate case for a felony.”
However, due to a missing report and pending hearings in Torrance and San Bernardino, the judge postponed final sentencing until March 3, allowing attorneys more time to gather evidence and court reports.
But the court cautioned, “It is a sentence of one year in county jail or finding an R&R program. It is still a theft offense. If there’s another report of theft, it will be filed as a felony.”
