WOODLAND, Calif. – A man is facing domestic violence charges in Yolo County Superior Court, even though the defense argued he never physically harmed anyone, including his partner, who filed the complaint.
During the arraignment, Judge David Reed ruled the prosecution had enough evidence to charge the accused with threatening his cohabiting partner with intent to terrorize her; two counts of abuse by endangering the health of two children who witnessed the argument; battery against his partner; and circumstances in aggravation. The charges were enhanced because the accused had priors and was considered a habitual criminal.
According to Detective Alma Rosas, the investigation began when the accused’s niece’s mother overheard him arguing with his partner after the incident. The niece had visited the accused’s two young children after a family barbecue where the accused had been drinking. An argument broke out between the accused and his partner, and the niece told Rosas that the accused pointed a shotgun at his partner’s face while she screamed for him to “get off” her. The accused then broke the taillight on his truck to prevent his partner from leaving with the kids.
When police investigated three days later, Rosas said the rooms were cluttered as if there had been a struggle.
Detective Greg Ford interviewed the couple’s 10-year-old daughter, who also witnessed the incident. According to her account, the argument began when the family gathered at Cache Creek Casino for a get-together and continued into the barbecue. She said her father was so belligerent that her mom had to drive the family home with the accused’s niece.
Once home, the daughter said she saw her father pull her mother’s hair in the bathroom. However, Deputy Public Defender Courtney Leavitt said the partner never accused the man of offending her, even though she provoked him to shoot her. The daughter recalled her mom yelling, “Shoot me! Shoot me! You won’t do it in front of the kids!”
The daughter said her father was sitting quietly on the couch when they returned home two days later.
During his testimony, Ford described the daughter as “quiet, soft, and wip(ing) away tears” while being cross-examined by Deputy District Attorney Daniela Dunham.
Ford also recounted how the couple’s 6-year-old son remembered his mom saying to his dad, “You think you’re funny; you’re not going to kill me.”
Ford said he searched the premises and found no firearms, only what looked like a fist print in the back shed.
Police Officer Zachary Rhino testified that the partner only reported threats and domestic violence. But Leavitt emphasized that only the niece witnessed the threats, while the two children said their mother provoked their father.
No one was physically hurt, but the children said they feared for their safety. The defense repeatedly argued that the hair-pulling was included in the complaint only after persuasion and that the partner did not feel threatened, even calling the accused “funny.” The niece’s mother filed the initial report. Because of this, the defense requested no holds on the accused.
Leavitt argued that no crime occurred because the accused did not meet the actus reus requirement of causing physical harm.
The prosecution, however, argued that the partner took the incident seriously enough to leave the home with the children. The kids were trained by their father on firearms and knew the difference between a gunshot and a fist hitting a wall.
In the end, Reed ruled for the prosecution, saying that, while the children’s stories varied, they were generally consistent and all expressed the same fear “engendered in them that speaks of the context that was happening there.”
Reed acknowledged the accused’s progress in alcohol rehab, noting he had reached stage three, but warned the charges could trigger relapse, job loss, and damage to his relationship with his kids.
Reed held Count 1, threatening with intent to terrorize, and Counts 2 and 3, abusing a child by endangering their health, to be felonies.
The restraining order protecting the partner was upheld, but the order for the children was dissolved because their mother did not include them.
The next arraignment is scheduled for Oct. 13.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
