WOODLAND, CA -After initial questioning by Deputy District Attorney Aimee Gabriela Carrazco of her witness in Yolo County Superior Court, Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt noted conflicting “false information” from the witness.
The accused in this preliminary hearing is suspected to have committed a hit-and-run on Nov. 17, 2023, in Sutter County, CA. After allegedly fleeing the scene, he drove to Woodland, CA, in the same silver Honda Accord involved in the crash, where he stopped at a Food 4 Less to purchase several alcoholic beverages before being involved in a second collision on Road 102 in Woodland.
The Woodland crash resulted in the death of the other driver, and the accused left his vehicle at the scene.
DDA Carrazco brought a retired CHP officer from Woodland to the stand as witness for the second collision.
During questioning, the officer testified that, on the day of the crash, it was “not raining at the time of collision” although the roads were slightly wet. He also stated Road 102 was mostly “straight, flat, level” suggesting the accused crashed into another vehicle because of his negligence.
During DPD Van Zandt’s cross-examination, the witness stated he was dispatched to the Woodland hit-and-run collision around 5:35 pm on Nov. 17, 2023, approximately 10 minutes after the accident occurred. That night, he said he completed the initial traffic report and submitted it to his supervisor. He then wrote and submitted a CHP 216 Arrest and Investigation report months later.
As DPD Van Zandt was questioning the witness, he asked, “And you concluded based upon your training and experience…that this accident was caused without gross negligence, correct?” The witness responded, “No, that is not correct,” to which a pause ensued in court as DPD Van Zandt looked over the witness’s police report.
DPD Van Zandt then asked the witness to review the “Recommendations” section in his report and confirm the collision was performed without gross negligence.
The witness then stated, “That was merely a mistake. I entered the wrong penal code section,” suggesting the witness actually believes the accused to have committed the crash with gross negligence.
Before DPD Van Zandt continued, he confirmed with the witness that he submitted his report to his supervisor, who then reviewed and approved it, and the witness confirmed this as true.
“When it was brought to my attention…approximately two weeks ago…by DDA Carrazo.” – Witness
DPD Van Zandt then asked the witness when he became aware of this mistake in his report, to which the witness replied, “When it was brought to my attention…approximately two weeks ago…(by) DDA Carrazco.”
DPD Van Zandt continued, stating the witness’s report could be deemed containing “false information” since DDA Carrazco did bring this to the court’s attention prior to his cross-examination. The witness, however, disagreed, and stated he “mistyped a penal code section.”
DDA Carrazco defended her witness in her redirect, reminding the court that the two penal codes on the witnesses police report “serve the purpose of flagging for the DA’s office, potentially appropriate charges” and that the witness doesn’t “ultimately make the decision on what charges are brought against a person.”
However, prior to this statement, DPD Van Zandt said, “The witness, mid testimony, changed his conclusion without notifying either counsel.”
After further witness statements confirming the accused’s presence and involvement in the Woodland hit and run, the court postponed the hearing to another day.
