FAIRFIELD, Calif. — Solano County prosecutors are seeking to transfer a 17-year-old accused of killing a pregnant woman and wounding six others in a Fairfield Halloween store shooting to adult criminal court, where he could face a life sentence if convicted.
The request places the teenager’s eligibility for rehabilitation within California’s juvenile justice system at the center of the proceedings. Under state law, prosecutors must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the minor cannot be rehabilitated while under juvenile court jurisdiction before a judge may authorize an adult prosecution.
The teenager appeared in Solano County Juvenile Court on Wednesday, Nov. 4, following the Oct. 30 shooting at the Spirit Halloween store in Solano Town Center. His arraignment was postponed until Nov. 13 to allow his public defender additional time to review police reports and video evidence.
According to KCRA, prosecutors charged the teenager with two counts of murder with a multiple-murder special circumstance, three counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm and multiple firearm enhancements.
Prosecutors also alleged that the teenager has a prior violent offense conviction.
The shooting occurred around 8:30 p.m. Oct. 30, when investigators say the accused entered the Spirit Halloween store and opened fire after encountering someone with whom he had a previous dispute.
According to investigators, the teenager was accompanied by a minor female when he entered the shopping center and encountered the person authorities believe was the intended target.
Police said the accused followed that individual into the store and fired a semiautomatic handgun, striking seven people.
More than 100 people, including children and families shopping for Halloween costumes, were inside the store at the time, according to NBC Bay Area.
Constance Hages, a 31-year-old pregnant mother of four, was killed in the shooting.
During Wednesday’s court appearance, prosecutors disclosed that Hages was 13 weeks pregnant and said they were pursuing a second murder charge in connection with the death of her unborn child.
Six other people were wounded, ranging in age from 16 to 43.
According to police reports, four victims remained hospitalized following the shooting, including a 19-year-old man who was listed in critical condition. Two other victims were treated and released.
Fairfield police arrested the teenager Nov. 2 at a residence in Suisun City after investigators reviewed surveillance footage from the store.
Authorities said a school resource officer recognized the accused as a former student and provided information that assisted investigators in identifying him.
The teenager was taken into custody without incident.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Chief Deputy District Attorney Bruce Flynn told the court that the accused had previously been involved in a shooting near Fairfield High School in 2025.
According to prosecutors, the earlier incident involved firing a gun into an occupied vehicle in the school’s parking lot.
The teenager subsequently spent several months in juvenile detention and was on probation when the Spirit Halloween shooting occurred, authorities said.
Prosecutors cited the earlier offense, the seriousness of the new charges and public safety concerns in requesting that the teenager remain detained.
The defense requested that the accused be released to a home placement while the case proceeded.
The judge denied the request and ordered the teenager to remain in juvenile detention.
The Solano County District Attorney’s Office has also filed a petition requesting that the case be transferred to adult criminal court.
Under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707, prosecutors may seek adult court prosecution for certain offenses allegedly committed by minors who were at least 16 years old at the time of the offense.
However, California law does not permit prosecutors to transfer eligible juvenile cases directly to adult court.
Instead, a juvenile court judge must conduct a transfer hearing and determine whether the prosecution has established by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under juvenile court jurisdiction.
The law requires judges to consider five factors: the minor’s degree of criminal sophistication, whether rehabilitation can be achieved before juvenile court jurisdiction expires, previous delinquent history, the results of earlier rehabilitation efforts and the circumstances and gravity of the alleged offense.
Judges must also consider relevant developmental factors, including the minor’s age, maturity, mental and emotional health, family circumstances and potential exposure to childhood trauma.
The seriousness of the allegations is therefore one factor in the transfer determination, but it does not independently establish that the accused cannot be rehabilitated within the juvenile system.
California’s current transfer procedures reflect changes to the state’s juvenile justice laws over the past decade.
In 2016, voters approved Proposition 57, which eliminated prosecutors’ authority to directly file juvenile cases in adult criminal court and required judicial review before a transfer could occur.
Subsequent legislation further restricted the circumstances under which younger teenagers may be transferred to adult court.
These changes established a greater judicial role in determining whether minors accused of serious crimes should remain within the juvenile justice system.
The transfer process is separate from determining whether the teenager committed the alleged offenses.
At a transfer hearing, the court evaluates the minor’s suitability for juvenile rehabilitation rather than deciding guilt or innocence.
If the case remains in juvenile court, the teenager would face a system primarily structured around rehabilitation, treatment and supervision rather than the adult criminal sentencing framework.
If the judge authorizes a transfer, the accused would face prosecution in adult criminal court and potentially substantially longer incarceration if convicted.
Legal analyst Steven Clark explained the sentencing consequences in an interview with ABC7 News.
“The difference between adult court and juvenile court for this individual means the potential for a life sentence versus getting out when he’s 25 years old,” Clark said.
Clark also explained that the transfer process could take months because the juvenile court must review evaluations and other evidence before deciding whether the case qualifies for adult prosecution.
The prosecution’s request does not mean the teenager will automatically be transferred.
The court must evaluate whether the evidence satisfies California’s statutory standard, including whether the accused can be rehabilitated within the period of juvenile court jurisdiction.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Flynn said the transfer decision could take several weeks.
The teenager’s next hearing is scheduled for Nov. 13 at 9 a.m. in Solano County Juvenile Court.
He remains in juvenile detention while the criminal proceedings and transfer request are pending.
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.
