WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County judge ruled Wednesday that two men charged with murder and conspiracy in connection with a fatal 2023 West Sacramento marijuana deal will proceed toward trial, despite defense challenges to the prosecution’s cellphone evidence, allegations that prosecutors presented statements selectively and arguments that the evidence failed to establish the accused acted with reckless indifference to human life.
During the final day of the preliminary hearing Aug. 5, defense counsel also raised concerns about the prosecution’s use of a message timeline in a case previously affected by a Racial Justice Act violation and alleged a Brady violation, arguing prosecutors shared selected statements by the accused while failing to present other information to the court.
A Brady violation occurs when the prosecution hides or fails to disclose information that may help the accused.
The accused face felony charges of murder and conspiracy to commit a crime, along with enhancement allegations. The Sacramento Bee also reported that the incident occurred in the aftermath of an attempted robbery during an illegal marijuana transaction that resulted in the fatal shooting of one person.
According to the Sacramento Bee, the West Sacramento Police Department released details about the shooting of a 29-year-old man on Ikea Court on the afternoon of Aug. 12, 2023.
The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office alleges the shooting resulted from a failed robbery during a marijuana deal.
The District Attorney’s Office alleges that one of the two men appearing in Woodland on Wednesday set up a scheme to purchase marijuana from the alleged victim. Investigators initially believed the victim died in a car accident, but a coroner’s report found that the victim had been shot, most likely causing him to crash.
Four adults and two minors were arrested by authorities. One of the two accused men was arrested in Sparks, Nevada, and the other was arrested in Sacramento.
The Vanguard previously reported that Judge Catherine Rayhill found a violation of the Racial Justice Act on July 9, resulting in the dismissalal of the case. Prosecutors subsequently refiled the same charges.
Wednesday’s preliminary hearing began with Deputy District Attorney Jesse Richardson arguing that the two accused men met the terms of the Banks and Clark test, which provides factors used to determine whether a participant in an underlying felony may be held liable for murder under California law.
Richardson’s arguments centered on the alleged “reckless indifference to human life” demonstrated by the two men’s actions. Richardson argued that the two men and the alleged shooter conspired to rob the alleged victim and that the two men were negligent in the victim’s death.
Citing cellphone text messages submitted as preliminary evidence, Richardson claimed the messages showed that the two men identified the victim’s vehicle as the target and that one of the men drove the shooter to and away from the scene.
Richardson acknowledged that although the men did not use deadly force, one of the men “had a significant role” in supplying the firearm that allegedly killed the victim. He cited additional messages referencing some type of ammunition exchange between the accused and the alleged shooter.
The accused “should have known” that the shooter brought a gun, Richardson said.
Richardson also argued that the two men acted recklessly following the shooting. The two men “fled the scene,” Richardson said.
There was “no evidence” that the two men were merely “swept up” in a criminal affair rather than acting as part of a deliberate conspiracy, Richardson argued.
Judge Clara M. Levers noted Wednesday that it was the final day of the preliminary hearing and referred to a prosecution exhibit containing a timeline of messages and contacts.
While discussing the timeline, Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira, representing one co-defendant, questioned the relevance of a specific piece of information included in the exhibit. She argued that the prosecution was attempting to downplay what her client was saying while simultaneously using the statement as evidence.
“You cannot have [it] both ways,” Sequeira said.
After further review of the timeline, Levers informed the court that messages sent by a co-defendant would be admissible against that individual.
Referring to the timeline, Levers asked Richardson about a message concerning Life360. Richardson told the court the information was relevant because one of the co-defendants had switched off their location on Life360 before the alleged robbery.
Levers then said the evidence would be admissible as nonhearsay.
Sequeira objected to the timeline being used as evidence. She argued that the timeline “was created by the officers well before charging.”
She further stated that the timeline was being used for “prosecution effort of convenience” and was being discussed “in a vacuum.”
Sequeira also argued that records containing additional information should have previously been brought forward because of the nature of the case. She said the responsibility did not rest with the defense to produce those records.
Sequeira also argued that all of the cellphone evidence was subject to double hearsay, or evidence outside the rules of evidence.
She argued that none of the cellphone evidence was permissible without testimony from a custodian of records who could verify the authenticity of the messages.
“How was the data maintained, what was included?” Sequeira said.
Sequeira argued that there was no implicit evidence demonstrating her client knew about a gun at the scene before or during the robbery.
Sequeira then asked the court whether an interview by the co-defendant taking place in September would be considered. She argued that it should not be used against her client, citing its lack of relevance, and that it should not be used to disregard other relevant statements.
Sequeira then raised an alleged Brady violation, arguing that the prosecution had not presented other information, including plea documents. She argued that prosecutors were providing only “pieces of statements.”
Richardson disagreed and said the prosecution had not committed a Brady violation. He said that although the prosecution may not have presented the information to the court, the information had been provided to the defense.
Richardson also asserted that the defense could have conducted cross-examination.
Sequeira objected, arguing that the burden rested with the prosecution and that prosecutors have “an ethical obligation to the court.”
“Why would you [prosecution] call ready on the death penalty when the witness was not [yet] subpoenaed?” Sequeira said.
Richardson objected and said he had done everything within the bounds of the law.
Defense attorney James Granucci, representing the other accused man, responded to Richardson’s claim that the accused conspired to commit robbery. Granucci argued that robbery charges must satisfy certain evidentiary tests.
He argued that the alleged “robbery” was more like a “snatch-and-grab,” describing it as a poorly planned and impromptu scheme to steal from the alleged victim.
Granucci further argued that there was no reasonable way for the two men to anticipate the killing.
Richardson responded that although there was no direct mention of a gun in testimony or text messages, cellphone conversations and in-person meetings “could” have included discussion of a gun.
Richardson argued that the intent behind the killing was not relevant to the statutory requirements for murder.
“Felony murder statutes do not give an okay to accidents,” Richardson said.
The court took an hourlong recess following Richardson’s closing arguments while Levers considered her ruling.
When Levers called the court back to order, she found sufficient evidence to hold the two men to answer on counts of murder and conspiracy.
Levers said she “wrestled” with her ruling but ultimately found that the legal sufficiency required for the case to proceed had been met.
“Just because the case can go forward doesn’t mean it should go forward,” Levers said.
Levers scheduled an arraignment on the information for the two men for Aug. 20.
The case is also scheduled for a ruling on a demurrer Aug. 11 in Department 10, with the arraignment on the information scheduled for Aug. 20 in Department 9.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
