YOLO, Calif. — At a preliminary hearing Friday in Yolo County the accused faced three domestic violence-related charges as the court credited officer testimony over defense arguments, raising questions about the credibility and causation of the evidence.
According to officer statements, the complaining victim had visible injuries, but there was no confirmed cause linking them to the alleged incident, and despite defense arguments that multiple factors undermined the evidence’s credibility, Judge Catherine Hohenwarter ruled the showing sufficient to proceed.
The complaining victim and the accused were reportedly in a yearlong dating relationship, and after losing their residence, they were temporarily staying at the complaining victim’s father’s house.
The alleged incident occurred in the accused’s vehicle outside the residence.
The victim was alleged to have been kicked, struck with a closed fist to the nose, and strangled with two hands inside the vehicle, causing them to lose consciousness for an unknown period of time.
The court heard testimony from two officers with the West Sacramento Police, both of whom met the victim in person and took their statements.
In testimony from the first officer, Officer Daniel Boehle said he observed visible injuries, including “purple-ish” bruises on the victim’s right bicep, “quite a few” bruises on their legs, and redness on their neck.
Boehle testified that he photographed the injuries to “the best of [his] ability,” but said he did not ask how the injuries were sustained.
Officer Cody Coulter testified that he also personally observed the injuries, specifically noting an arm injury that was “significantly raised and swollen,” and bruising on the victim’s knuckle.
Coulter added that the victim complained of head and rib pain.
Deputy District Attorney Nicholas Spatola argued there was sufficient evidence the accused “willfully inflicted injury” on the victim and found “probable cause … for all three charges.”
Deputy Public Defender Katie DeAnda countered that “the biggest issue with this case is that there is no verification of how these injuries actually happened other than the victim’s statements of how they happen.”
Because of that, she argued the evidence was insufficient, noting the prosecution’s case relied largely on officer testimony that could not confirm the cause of the injuries or discuss the victim’s criminal history.
She told the court that officer testimony is intended to stand in for the victim’s at the preliminary stage, “but they can’t tell me about [their] criminal history. They can’t tell me about [their] background. They can’t tell me about the psychiatric medication that [they’re] on. They can’t tell me about any of that because they’re not [the complaining witness].”
Citing the victim’s criminal history, which included elderly abuse, DeAnda said, “All we have is somebody’s word, and to be quite frank, her word is subject to quite a bit of credibility issues.”
She also raised concerns about the lack of follow-up investigation, stating the incident allegedly occurred “outside in front of homes in a neighborhood … where there are oftentimes Ring [security] cameras.”
DeAnda further argued that aspects of the alleged assault did not align with the documented injuries, emphasizing that the victim reported being hit in the nose with a closed fist but showed no visible or notable facial injuries.
She also pointed to redness on the neck that she argued was insufficient to confirm strangulation, noting that Officer Boehle stated in his testimony “that there were no signs of petechiae, which is often … the number one sign of strangulation.”
The defense requested a no-hold order, and alternatively asked the court to reduce the charges to misdemeanors, citing the accused’s age of 23 and the absence of prior convictions, arrests, or police contact.
Judge Hohenwarter denied both requests, finding there was sufficient evidence to show the charged crimes were committed by the accused and concluding that the facts supported felony-level conduct.
The accused remains on supervised own recognizance, though the court removed a Yolo County stay-away order from the supervision terms to allow the accused to care for an elderly grandmother.
An arraignment hearing is scheduled for Dec. 19.
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.
