WOODLAND, Calif. — An accused facing multiple domestic violence-related charges was denied release on his own recognizance Friday in Yolo County Superior Court, where Judge Danette Brown ultimately set bail at $30,000 despite defense arguments regarding his financial hardship and transient status.
The accused faces two felony counts of false imprisonment with force or violence and infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, as well as a misdemeanor count of child abuse/endangerment with circumstances pleaded in aggravation.
The defense motioned for OR release, arguing there were “less restrictive means, not only for public safety, in return to court,” while noting this was the accused’s “first ever contact with the justice system.”
“This is strange. At this early stage and at this kind of level, to be imposing such restrictive means, like imposing a SCRAM device where you would have to self-pay. That’s imposing a financial condition. [The accused] can’t afford that. He is transient,” Deputy Public Defender Sarah MacDonald said, noting his employment and his attempt to create a stable life.
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo said, “We’re focusing on public safety and the safety of the victims in this matter versus him failing to appear in court.”
Palumbo continued, calling it a “serious domestic violence case in which the defendant drank alcohol, kept the victim from leaving their motel for a period of four hours, essentially holding her hostage.”
Palumbo added that the accused threatened to waterboard the victim, “push[ing] her into the bathroom and put[ting] pressure on the sides of her neck with his fingers, and his hands in her mouth, and he grabbed her arms and neck and threw her down.”
Due to the seriousness of the case, the question before the court was how the victim could be kept safe if the accused were released. Despite there being a no-contact order, Palumbo argued, “that’s a piece of paper. That doesn’t prevent him from having contact with her.”
Additionally, supervised OR was deemed unworkable because the accused lives in Yuba City, and probation would therefore be unable to supervise him there. The prosecution requested that, if the accused were released, the court implement SCRAM self-pay and GPS monitoring, but argued neither would be practical given that no one would be able to monitor it.
Judge Brown voiced hesitation about releasing the accused on OR and stated that because he is out of county, SOR, GPS and SCRAM were all not viable options. After “exhausting all options,” Judge Brown concluded there were “no other least restrictive means to keep the victim safe,” while issuing a no-contact criminal protective order.
DPD MacDonald argued, “We have to give him a chance to do it,” to which Palumbo responded that the court does not have to “give him a chance.” Because the court found the matter falls under an Article I, Section 12 crime, “the court doesn’t even have to set bail,” Palumbo argued.
In response, MacDonald argued the court should set bail considering it was the accused’s first contact with the justice system and because of his financial circumstances.
Palumbo stated that “the defense’s statements are not evidence. No bank records, no W-2s, no statements from employers. Nothing that is able to be obtained and produced to show [the accused’s] ability or inability to pay.”
Despite MacDonald stating the defense did, in fact, have evidence, including a probation report, Judge Brown ultimately set bail at the scheduled amount of $30,000.
The next court date is scheduled for May 27 at 9 a.m. in Department 7 for bail review.
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.
