By Noor Rashid, Jade Leonard, Anna Chandriani, Juwairia Shoaib, Sarah Naser, and Jojo Kofman
SAN FRANCISCO — During a preliminary hearing Tuesday in San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Patrick S. Thompson ruled there was enough evidence to move forward against a 32-year-old accused of murder, child endangerment, and firearm possession.
The ruling aligned with Deputy District Attorney Kourtney Bell’s argument that the accused poses a threat to public safety, despite Deputy Public Defender Kwixuan Maloof’s argument that the killing was not malicious and should be considered manslaughter.
“This case involves an unimaginable family tragedy — not a calculated crime,” Maloof said in statement to the Vanguard. “This is a deeply tragic situation involving a family in crisis. The events that unfolded were the result of a deeply emotional, highly volatile confrontation between a mother and her adult child that escalated beyond control.”
The incident took place around 3:45 p.m. on June 21, 2025, at 159 Brookdale Ave. in San Francisco. The accused had been watering the lawn when his mother returned home from a football game with her husband and three children.
Bell called San Francisco Police Sgt. Francis Feliciano to testify. Feliciano said the victim argued with the accused after arriving home. He said the dispute escalated throughout the day, becoming “heated,” according to the accused. Feliciano testified that the accused pointed a handgun at his mother’s head, attempted to fire, disengaged the safety, and then shot her.
During the police interrogation, the accused allegedly told officers he didn’t plan the killing, saying he had reached his limit and “couldn’t take it anymore.”
The court also heard that the accused and his mother had a tumultuous history. According to Maloof, the mother had previously threatened both the accused and his sister with knives.
Maloof said the accused took off his jacket and placed it over the victim’s head after the shooting and stayed within 10 feet of her body. He added that the accused placed the gun on top of a vehicle, raised his hands, got on his knees, and never fled the scene.
“He is the one who called 911,” Maloof said. During cross-examination, Sgt. Feliciano confirmed that the accused had said he considered shooting himself and his dog after killing his mother.
Another witness, Officer Jordan Anthony Oryall, Jr., testified that he arrived at the scene after a 911 call reporting a man had shot his mother. He saw the accused in handcuffs on the lawn and a woman lying in front of the house. He checked her pulse, found none, and began CPR.
“Our client is devastated,” Maloof told the Vanguard. “What happened was not an act of malice, hatred, or premeditation, but a tragic, heat-of-the-moment response during an emotionally charged argument. The evidence will show this was not murder, but a case of overwhelming emotional distress and a loss of control in an incredibly volatile moment.”
During further cross-examination, Maloof asked Feliciano to confirm the accused’s statements. Feliciano confirmed that the accused said, “I didn’t plan it. I was at my limit. I couldn’t take it anymore. She was just coming at me so aggressively.”
Feliciano also confirmed that, when asked whether it was a heat-of-the-moment decision, the accused responded “yes.” After viewing interrogation video, Feliciano confirmed the accused said he “didn’t have the thought process” and “didn’t know he was going to shoot his mother” during the argument. He also verified the accused told his mother to calm down.
The victim’s husband testified that the accused and his mother had argued over the phone before she got home, and the conflict escalated upon her return. He said her last words were, “Do it, do it if you have the balls to, do it.”
He added, “My wife was the one to raise her voice first. My wife was calling him out. It was something he was doing that my wife didn’t like. He was supposedly smoking marijuana. That’s what she was always chewing him out for.”
Maloof told the Vanguard, “The law recognizes that intense emotional states — especially within families — can impair judgment and lead to actions that, while deeply regrettable, are not murder. We are confident that once all the facts come to light, it will be clear that this case meets the legal standard for manslaughter — not murder. We intend to vigorously defend our client’s constitutional rights as the legal process unfolds.”
When Maloof asked the court to reduce the charges to manslaughter, arguing it was a crime of passion, Judge Thompson said he did not have the authority to do so. Only the jury or the district attorney could reduce the charges.
During redirect, Bell asked Feliciano whether he believed the accused planned to kill his mother. Feliciano said “yes,” prompting an immediate objection from Judge Thompson, who said the answer was “a completely illegal conclusion and has no evidentiary value.”
Thompson reiterated that the court could not add a lesser included charge like voluntary manslaughter. The jury would have to determine whether the killing was committed with malice.
Maloof cited Penal Code section 188(a)(2), which states that provocation can negate malice. “If there’s provocation, there’s no malice,” he said, describing how the argument had escalated over the course of the day.
Earlier that day, the accused was watering the grass when his mother called to reprimand him. After returning home, she went in and out of the house before she “swung something” at him, according to the defense, prompting him to pull out a gun.
Maloof again highlighted the accused’s actions after the shooting, saying he placed a jacket over the victim’s head, stayed nearby, surrendered to police, and never fled. “These actions show no malice,” he argued.
Bell countered that the facts showed “implied malice,” saying the accused had a gun and knew it posed a danger to human life.
Maloof then made an oral 17(b) motion to reduce the felony charges to misdemeanors, which Judge Thompson denied without prejudice. He said preliminary hearings do not consider proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case would move forward to a jury.
The accused also faces three counts of child endangerment. Two of those counts involve individuals whose ages were not confirmed in court, raising questions about whether they were minors. While the accused does not have custody over the three individuals, Bell argued that the children witnessed the shooting through a door and experienced mental suffering, justifying the charges.
Thompson found there was sufficient evidence for the case to proceed. He said it would be up to a jury to consider the statements and family dynamics, and held that the accused will answer to the murder charge.
He added that the accused’s decision to disengage the gun’s safety was enough to “at least temporarily establish premeditation.” He also found sufficient evidence to support the child endangerment charges, given the proximity of the children to the shooting.
The next court date is scheduled for July 22 at 9 a.m.
