WOODLAND, CA- A Yolo County Superior Court judge Tuesday denied a prosecution motion to postpone the upcoming trial of Carlos Dominguez, the accused in a 2023 Davis stabbing spree, citing a lack of justification and concerns over trial delay.
Dominguez is currently jailed, facing two counts of murder, three counts of enhancement for use of a deadly weapon, infliction of great bodily injury, special circumstance for multiple murders, and prior felony conviction.
The Vanguard has been following this case from the beginning and, during the early disposition conference April 8, 2025, Deputy District Attorney Matthew P. De Moura argued the prosecution had been working hard and fast but wanted more time.
Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson opposed this, suggesting it would affect the trial completely.
Judge Samuel T. McAdam questioned why the prosecution filed for a continuance with less than a month before trial, noting both parties had confirmed readiness April 1.
Tuesday, the prosecution motioned to continue the jury trial, with DDA De Moura stating a supplemental report was still being worked on by “the high-tech unit” and would be finished “by the end of the week.”
De Moura added he had learned from DPD Hutchinson that the defense “will be obtaining their own expert” to review the data from the prosecution and the prosecution’s expert.
DDA De Moura acknowledged both parties were working “diligently” for a timely case, but he thinks “rushing it is not giving the attorneys the time to prepare and properly present the case.”
DPD Hutchinson noted he was concerned this would “result in defense expert Dr. Sarah Vincent being unavailable to testify when the sanity phase would begin,” which would necessitate another delay.
DPD Hutchinson then noted, regarding cell phone extraction, that the discovery deadline was March 28, yet he received it on April 1.
The following day, said Hutchinson, he received “a portion of a preliminary report” that was deemed inaccurate, causing him to be told by April 9 to disregard it and he was provided a new report.
DPD Hutchinson said he was told the prosecution’s Christopher Kumato is creating a new “expert report,” which DPD Hutchinson has not received.
And he confirmed the defense would be obtaining its own expert, noting he may not have a report prepared “at the start of trial,” as he had only received the latest report “six days ago.”
Concerned about the report complications and Dr. Vincent’s availability, Hutchinson advised the prosecution that Dominguez “would withdraw his time waiver” but that DPD Hutchinson would accept a continuance for June 9 or June 16, which are “within the 60-day period” to not cause conflicts for defense witnesses.
Judge McAdam reminded the courtroom of the case’s background, acknowledging the criminal complaint was filed May 5, 2023, noting there was “no objection to a non-competent finding” and the “defendant was arraigned March 3, 2024” and the case was set for trial 10 months ago, June 18, 2024. This resulted in the case being two years and 10 months old.
Judge McAdam stated the accused entered an “insanity plea” and that there didn’t seem to be an expectation of delays because of the change of plea.
“At no time did anyone raise any concerns about delays,” Judge McAdam stated, adding the defense hired their own expert and did so timely in March.
As for the prosecution, they insisted “more time is needed,” but Judge McAdam explained this case is governed by “Penal Code section 1050” advising continuances are “disfavored” unless they are in the interest of justice.
Judge McAdam stated the party requesting a continuance needed to provide “a reasonable explanation as to why the case is not ready and when it will be ready,” and, referring to the “fundamental facts in this case,” the judge said, “both parties confirmed they were ready for trial,” yet three days later, the prosecution motioned for the continuation.
Judge McAdam added there were several student and police witnesses, and the prosecution’s team has known about the campus video surveillance from May 2, 2023, according to multiple reports.
Judge McAdam said, “The prosecution argued this evidence shows the defendant fled the scene or attempted to evade campus security, noting the vagueness of the video evidence, with no grounds for continuance without more context for the prosecution’s reasoning.”
DDA De Moura clarified he’s unable to provide information from the iPad in question until “technology progresses.” He also said he was unable to retrieve the campus footage but that a copy was found Friday.
DPD Hutchinson also clarified he intended to provide experts “full material” to be examined.
Upon once again considering Dr. Vincent’s availability, DPD Hutchinson suggested she could testify remotely if needed, but the prosecution had opposed this.
In response, Judge McAdam said he’d accommodate Dr. Vincent and take her testimony out of order. He also denied the prosecution’s request for time off, noting that, while he wants to accommodate lawyers, he does not want a pause that lengthens the trial further because he had committed to a “10-week trial.”
Judge McAdam invited Frederick Munk to make his media request before concluding the meeting. Munk, working on a documentary with Jared Martin, requested permission to record the trial for the documentary.
The judge “denied the request without prejudice,” advising Munk to file a legal brief to be considered for permission before the next hearing.
Judge McAdam scheduled April 23 for the next hearing and set the trial for April 28.
