NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Questions about whether an accused woman knowingly possessed methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found in her vehicle arose during a jury trial Monday, when one defense witness testified that he regularly brought drugs and paraphernalia into her van without her knowledge, while another described how other individuals had access to the vehicle shortly before her arrest.
The accused faces two misdemeanor charges of possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, along with two vehicle-related infractions. The charges stem from a July 28, 2025, traffic stop. She pleaded not guilty to all charges Feb. 2.
During the portion of Monday’s jury trial observed in the afternoon, a forensic scientist from the Orange County Crime Laboratory and two defense witnesses testified.
The forensic scientist testified that she received the suspected narcotics in a sealed manila envelope submitted to the laboratory for testing. She observed no signs of tampering or damage to the packaging.
The substance had a net weight of 5.88 grams, and laboratory testing identified it as methamphetamine.
She explained that she conducted three analyses to identify the substance, including a presumptive color test, crystal testing and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS).
During cross-examination, the defense questioned the scientist about her involvement in the case and whether the testing could establish who had handled the substance.
The scientist confirmed that she was not present during the traffic stop and did not observe where the narcotics were originally found. Her involvement was limited to testing the evidence after it was submitted to the laboratory.
She acknowledged that the testing could not determine who placed the drugs inside the packaging or who last handled them. The scientist confirmed that she did not conduct DNA or fingerprint analysis on the packaging.
During questioning by the defense, a witness who had known the accused for more than 40 years testified about his history of drug use and frequent access to her van. The witness previously had a romantic relationship with the accused and shares a child with her.
The witness testified that he frequently spent time inside the van, sometimes riding as a passenger while the accused drove and other times driving the vehicle without her present.
Between January and June 2025, he did not have a permanent residence and sometimes stayed on the streets or slept inside the accused’s van. He explained that he occasionally slept in the front passenger seat or toward the rear of the vehicle.
He noted that the seating arrangement inside the van frequently changed, with seats sometimes being removed. The witness referred to another individual who performed mechanical work on the vehicle, including removing its seats, and who later testified for the defense.
The first witness explained that he regularly brought personal belongings into the van, including items he found on the street. He added that he brought different bags into the vehicle and sometimes forgot to remove his belongings.
The defense then questioned him about his substance use.
He identified methamphetamine as his drug of choice and stated that he continued struggling with methamphetamine use throughout 2024 and 2025. The witness said his substance use problems began approximately 30 years ago.
The witness testified that during the first half of 2025, he carried methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia almost every day while frequently spending time inside the accused’s van.
He explained that he regularly brought controlled substances and paraphernalia into the vehicle, keeping them inside bags in different areas of the van.
The witness acknowledged that he may have left methamphetamine or drug paraphernalia inside the vehicle because he forgot to retrieve them.
He testified that he had been arrested approximately five or six times for drug-related offenses between January and June 2025. Law enforcement officers encountered him inside the accused’s van on approximately two or three occasions during that period.
According to the witness, when officers approached the van, he sometimes hurriedly dropped narcotics inside the vehicle because he did not want to be caught possessing them.
Once officers placed him in handcuffs, he was unable to retrieve the drugs he had dropped.
The witness stated that officers sometimes discovered drugs or drug paraphernalia on his person during those arrests.
He explained that officers did not always search the van because, after finding the items on him, they concluded their searches without examining the vehicle.
The witness said he spent time inside the accused’s van before his arrest around June 16 or 17. He testified that he remained in custody for a significant period afterward.
During cross-examination by the prosecution, the witness testified that the accused had never seen him smoke methamphetamine and that he had not discussed his drug use with her.
He stated that nobody had known about his methamphetamine use for approximately 20 years.
The witness also testified that people on the street could have access to the van.
During redirect examination, the defense returned to the subject of the bags the witness had previously described.
He explained that he placed narcotics and other belongings inside bags he found on the street, including women’s purses and other types of bags.
Following redirect examination, the defense called another witness who had performed mechanical work on the accused’s van.
The witness testified that he had known the accused for approximately two years through the previous defense witness, whom he had known for about 45 years.
During questioning by the defense, the witness stated that he had worked on the accused’s van roughly four or five times between January and June 2025.
He explained that he performed the work on a public street in front of his home and that the accused was not always present while he worked on the vehicle.
The witness testified that he returned to work on the van in July 2025 and removed all of its seats.
During the repairs, he left all the vehicle’s doors open throughout the day, from around noon until the evening.
He explained that other people were present while he worked on the van with its doors open, including neighbors and other individuals, both men and women.
The witness stated that the previous defense witness was incarcerated during the July repairs.
He also explained that he sometimes stepped away from the vehicle and went inside his home for periods of time.
During those periods, the van’s doors remained open, and he could not always see the vehicle. He acknowledged that someone could have entered the van without his knowledge.
The witness testified that removing the seats in July required him to take other items out of the van, which he later placed back inside.
During cross-examination by the prosecution, the witness confirmed that he removed the seats in July, just a few days before the accused was arrested July 28, 2025.
The witness added that he had seen another individual he knew inside the van and that the individual frequently spent time in his neighbors’ vehicles as well.
When questioned by the prosecution about whether he had left a purse containing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia inside the van, the witness denied doing so.
Laboratory testing, as indicated, confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine, but the forensic scientist could not determine who previously handled the evidence.
The defense witnesses’ testimony raised the possibility that the methamphetamine and paraphernalia could have been left inside the accused’s van without her knowledge.
The presentation of evidence concluded Monday, and jury deliberations are scheduled to begin Nov. 3 at 9 a.m.
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.
