WOODLAND, CA – Deputy Public Defender Sarah MacDonald argued in a trial’s closing arguments in Yolo County Superior Court Tuesday that resources should have been offered to the houseless accused, and charged the case was mishandled by police displaying clear “flaws in the judicial system.”
The accused was charged on five counts: two counts of attempted second degree robbery, crime with intent to terrorize, dissuading victims by threat/force, and receiving stolen property. The accused was also charged with an enhancement of circumstances in aggravation.
Deputy District Attorney Nicholas Spatola stated the unhoused accused was found to be trespassing in a tent that allegedly belonged to a homeless couple. That day the couple had gone to work for four hours, allowing the accused to enter their unattended tent.
The situation escalated and the accused allegedly stood ground with a rake, stating profanities at the victims. Eventually the accused ran from the scene and the victims called the police.
DPD MacDonald said that because the argument between the accused and the homeless couple escalated, the accused was acting in self-defense by standing his ground with a rake and cursing profanities.
DPD MacDonald noted the victim’s custody struggles as a motivation for reporting the crime, also emphasizing the two-against-one dynamic—stating the accused was in “survival mode.”
DPD MacDonald further blunted the charges related to the alleged theft of the victim’s phone, arguing the accused could not dissuade the victim from calling the police if the call had already been made. Further, DPD MacDonald stated the accused believed they were the victim.
In her fifth defense argument, DPD MacDonald contended the theft charge is based on circumstantial evidence because the stolen phone was found in a nearby restaurant and not on the accused. DPD MacDonald insisted the court cannot assume the accused took the phone with insufficient evidence.
DPD MacDonald maintained the prosecution was “leaping” as they had not proven a reasonable conclusion, adding, “Unless the prosecution has expelled all doubt,” the accused is not guilty.
DPD MacDonald concluded her closing statement emphasizing the homelessness crisis, noting the accused “had good faith (they) had the right to the property” because the accused believed it to be abandoned.
DPD MacDonald maintained the case was “blown out of proportion” and that “it is the flaws of the judicial system” that led to the court’s disproportionate response.
DPD MacDonald told the court the case should have been handled differently—resources should have been extended and the police did not handle the case appropriately. She argued that if the case involved two housed individuals, the outcome of the case would have been different.
DDA Spatola, in the prosecution’s closing argument, insisted the case is “ridiculousness.”
The prosecutor said the intent of the accused was to steal, arguing there was no evidence to determine the tent was abandoned because it was in “perfect condition,” charging the “(accused) wanted to claim property that wasn’t (theirs).”
DPD MacDonald stated the police “saw what they wanted to see… an unhoused individual,” and labeled their efforts as “lazy policing” that resulted in inordinate response.
The accused will remain in jail custody until the jury reaches a verdict.
