WOODLAND, Calif. — Prosecutors and defense attorneys presented sharply contrasting accounts of Carlos Reales Dominguez’s mental state and intent during closing arguments Thursday in Yolo County Superior Court, with the prosecution arguing the evidence demonstrated deliberate, intentional killings and the defense maintaining Dominguez’s schizophrenia prevented him from forming the specific intent required for murder. Following rebuttal arguments and jury instructions from Judge Samuel T. McAdam, jurors began deliberating in the retrial.
Dominguez, a former University of California, Davis, student is accused of fatally stabbing two people and injuring a third during a series of attacks in Davis in 2023.
During the first trial last year, jurors acquitted Dominguez of first-degree murder but were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the second-degree murder charges. Judge McAdam declared a mistrial, leading to the current retrial.
Deputy District Attorney Alex Kian resumed his closing argument by showing jurors video footage of Dominguez sitting inside a Davis police vehicle shortly after his arrest. Kian emphasized that Dominguez was “talking fine” while interacting with officers and complied when instructed to fasten his seat belt.
Kian then reviewed testimony from prosecution expert Dr. Siegel, reminding jurors that schizophrenia is a trait while psychosis is a mental state. He also argued that marijuana use can exacerbate schizophrenia.
Turning to testimony from Dr. Rhee and Dr. Vinson, Kian stressed the significance of memory in evaluating criminal intent.
“Just because you do not remember does not mean that you do not have the intent to do something,” Kian told the jury.
Addressing schizophrenia more broadly, Kian argued the illness exists on a spectrum and “it does not take away their ability to make decisions depending on their state.”
Kian also highlighted Dominguez’s reported cannabis use, noting Dominguez told expert witnesses he used marijuana multiple times during the week and sometimes several times in a single day.
The prosecutor argued circumstantial evidence is appropriate for determining intent because no one can know another person’s thoughts directly.
“He knew what he was doing. He had the intent to kill,” Kian argued.
Kian concluded by urging jurors to return guilty verdicts, telling them that “his actions, decisions and choices are the best clues to his mental state.”
During rebuttal arguments, the prosecution again urged jurors to reject the defense’s theory that Dominguez’s schizophrenia prevented him from forming the intent necessary for the charged offenses.
Instead, the prosecution argued Dominguez made conscious decisions and remained aware of his actions before, during and after the attacks.
A significant portion of the rebuttal focused on Dominguez’s interactions with law enforcement following the stabbings.
The prosecution cited an interview in which Dominguez identified himself as “John Joas” and provided a birth date of Oct. 10, 1999.
The prosecutor also argued Dominguez had previously used another false name, “Joseph John,” during a March 28, 2023, police encounter that ended without his arrest.
According to statements cited by the prosecution, Dominguez later told Dr. Rhee he used a false name because he was paranoid and believed using an alias would help him avoid trouble with police.
The prosecution argued Dominguez’s repeated use of false identifying information demonstrated he understood the consequences of his actions and deliberately attempted to evade law enforcement.
The prosecution further maintained schizophrenia did not eliminate Dominguez’s ability to make decisions, pointing to several actions they argued reflected organized, intentional conduct.
According to the prosecution, Dominguez used marijuana daily, contacted a marijuana dealer before the attacks, rode his bicycle home without incident after one of the attacks and later played the guitar.
Responding to Dominguez’s claim that he believed he was attacking “shadow” figures, the prosecution argued that someone genuinely acting out of fear would ordinarily flee rather than repeatedly stab another person.
The prosecution contended Dominguez’s decision to continue stabbing the victims demonstrated intent rather than instinctive self-defense.
The rebuttal also highlighted internet searches for hunting and combat knives, which prosecutors argued demonstrated prior knowledge and familiarity with knives before the attacks.
The prosecutor further referenced cuts on Dominguez’s hands and blood found on shorts that had been turned inside out in a laundry hamper. According to the prosecution, the wounds appeared more consistent with knife injuries than with Dominguez’s explanation that they were caused by a pencil.
The prosecution argued Dominguez’s actions after the attacks also reflected organized thinking. According to the prosecutor, his ability to ride a bicycle home, avoid obstacles and later play the guitar demonstrated purposeful behavior.
Additionally, prosecutors argued Dominguez’s decision to keep a knife while abandoning his cellphone during a later police encounter suggested he understood the significance of the weapon.
The prosecution concluded that Dominguez knew a knife could cause deadly harm and intentionally endangered human life.
“Just because he doesn’t remember doesn’t mean he didn’t intend to do it,” the prosecutor argued.
Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson presented a markedly different interpretation of the evidence.
Hutchinson emphasized Dominguez’s long-standing mental illness and reminded jurors of testimony from former UC Davis professor Dr. Ava Bindas, who testified Dominguez was struggling and believed something was seriously wrong.
Hutchinson maintained there is overwhelming evidence that Dominguez suffers from schizophrenia.
He challenged Dr. Tory’s opinion that “Dominguez’s risk factors and symptoms of progression are indicative of a cannabis-induced psychotic disorder that subsequently evolved into schizophrenia spectrum disorder.”
Hutchinson questioned why the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office retained Dr. Tory, arguing he “has not done thorough preparation, does not have communication skills, does not have impressive experience and credentials, and is not inexpensive relative to others.”
The defense also criticized the prosecution’s rejection of Dominguez’s schizophrenia diagnosis, arguing his mental illness began before he enrolled at UC Davis and significantly worsened by April 2023.
Hutchinson revisited Bindas’ testimony and discussed Dominguez’s difficult childhood and lack of family support, arguing those circumstances contributed to his declining mental health.
The defense disputed the prosecution’s assertion that Dominguez knowingly ignored his dismissal from UC Davis.
According to Hutchinson, Dominguez continued attending classes and scheduling academic advising appointments because he never opened the email informing him he had been dismissed.
Regarding Dominguez’s use of a false name, Hutchinson argued individuals with schizophrenia sometimes adopt aliases and noted Dominguez had previously used the same name on a classroom quiz.
Hutchinson also criticized then-Det. Steve Ramos for preparing what he characterized as false reports and statements.
The defense argued Ramos and Sgt. Matt Muscardini fabricated statements attributed to Dominguez and included remarks Dominguez never made.
Hutchinson argued those inaccuracies “started a false narrative from the very beginning that shaped how this case was investigated and characterized by law enforcement.”
After closing arguments concluded, Judge McAdam instructed the jury before sending jurors to begin deliberations.
Before deliberations, the court addressed several evidentiary matters.
Judge McAdam ruled that a map of Central Park, a YouTube video, a PowerPoint presentation from the first trial, UC Davis transcripts and a glasses screening would not be admitted into evidence as defense exhibits.
The court also discussed procedures should the case proceed to a second phase.
Judge McAdam explained a second phase would occur only if the jury returned guilty verdicts on second-degree murder or attempted murder charges.
If the jury is unable to reach unanimous verdicts, there will be no second phase, the court said.
Judge McAdam added that the jury’s verdict will determine whether issues involving involuntary manslaughter or additional proceedings become necessary.
The court also noted Dominguez will continue to be transported to court each day should a second phase of the trial be required.
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.
