By Ramneet Singh
WOODLAND, CA – Yolo County Superior Court Judge Peter Williams here last Friday considered potential treatment options for Jasmine Moore, who is facing multiple felonies for throwing rocks at cars, but still kept her in-custody despite Moore not receiving necessary medication in jail.
In the preliminary hearing, five officers testified to her crimes, and a few acknowledged mental health concerns for the accused.
Judge Williams stated that felony charges were: two counts of “assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury,” two counts of “throwing substance at a vehicle” and vandalism. The misdemeanor charges were two counts of vandalism, petty theft. There was an enhancement.
Davis Police Officer Keirith Briesenick, initially focusing on counts four through six, said she went towards “Covell Boulevard near Riesling Place” about an incident of someone throwing rocks at cars at about 11:58 p.m. on Feb. 2.
Briesenick described what the “reporting party” told her, namely that one rock was thrown at a vehicle in front, two at the reporting party’s vehicle, and one behind. Through discussion, Briesenick determined the rocks’ size were similar to a racquet ball. The damage was “limited” and there were no injuries.
When asked about identification of Moore, she would answer “apparently so.” Defense Attorney Rob Gorman would later question this and she replied it was due to her purposefully avoiding being familiar with the case when helping with the line-up.
When asked, Briesenick responded that Moore was “agitated” at the scene, and noted that Moore stated “she was throwing rocks at cars because they were ‘in her way.’” Briesenick also mentioned that “she was stepping out into traffic as well in an attempt to harm herself.”
Briesenick noted the potential help that Moore apparently needed.
Deputy District Attorney Jesse Richardson brought in Davis Police Officer David Dudley, who said the accused admitted to rock throwing and Moore told him “she was dealing with some stuff and she was letting off some steam.”
Dudley replied to questions about the rocks and where he found them; he described the rocks in the same manner as Briesenick. Gorman would later question this, but Dudley denied talking to her about it.
Dudley said Moore was “somewhat cooperative.” When asked, Dudley responded “no” to a question about Moore attempting harm. There was an objection to a subsequent question.
Richardson brought in Davis Police Officer Burgess Leon Griffin IV. Referring to the Feb. 2 case, Griffin affirmed that he did help with the investigation and in a field show up.
DDA Richardson brought in Davis Police Officer Mariano Lopez, who stated that the reporting party had a rock thrown at her vehicle that had damage at an estimated $490. No one was injured and no rocks were found.
Lopez confirmed that by her arrest on Feb. 2, Moore did not have a cell phone and the victim did not identify Moore.
Going to Jan. 31, Lopez answered questions about the damage to the car. There were other clarifications on details, which included the line-up. There was a name mix-up at this point.
Through questioning, Lopez stated he knew of her address at her apartment complex. Richardson had some additional questions.
There was a break in the courtroom before DDA Richardson brought in Davis Police Officer Fiona Wais, who said Moore noted that the clerk was “rude” and that was why she did it.
Based on questions about the manager, Wais responded there were limited interactions in the store and he noticed she had thrown items. Wais stated that the damaged items were $30.92.
With questions about surveillance, Wais responded Moore went into the store, “something occurred,” and took the products down.
From Gorman, Wais would clarify aspects. She replied “she seemed frustrated at first and then distraught…she did begin to cry at a point.”
With questioning, Wais confirmed she knew Moore was homeless at the time and that Wais had known of her already.
Wais responded “Dec. 11, I actually decided to house her…she wanted to go to jail, she had not slept, and she was extremely exhausted.” Wais stated that the manager signed a citizen’s arrest. Wais stated she was taken to jail, have shelter, and be cited afterwards.
Gorman moved to counts one and four (p.c. 245(a)(4)) and stated “that particular crime is a general intent crime, but the likely to produce great bodily injury aspect has to be more than some obscure chance.”
Gorman also noted the limited damage on the Feb. 2 incident and that there was no injury, and that the circumstances in this case was that the rock throwing was less likely to cause great injury.
Judge Williams countered with “is there sort of a fundamental or almost implied intent in that respect.” Gorman stated that it’s possible, but that the injury “had to be likely to occur, not just possible or attenuated.”
Looking to counts two and five (23110(B)), Gorman said the “specific intent crime” portion didn’t have evidence to support it. He referred to Dudley’s statement on Moore’s intention. He stated that a misdemeanor existed in this action.
Gorman understood why the prosecution listed it in that manner, he also mentioned the mental health aspect. He moved to “felony vandalism” and that the cost was “just barely over the threshold for felony vandalism.” He later asked for the felony to be reduced.
Gorman did not challenge the rest, but he also noted that other people had not been injured and summarized the rest of his points. He also wanted to look at supervised OR for Moore’s release.
Judge Williams stated his position had not changed much, he wanted to keep the felony counts one and four due to the consequences. He agreed with Gorman on counts two and five; “I know it’s kind of a strange split that I’m coming up with here, he noted he was unsure about the intent.
DDA Richardson would respond that he knew the differences in charges. He noted the strong potential for injury and that there was “repeated conduct knowing that that could cause such dangerousness.” Given the type of hearing, there was “an inference that there is an intent.”
DDA Richardson acknowledged the mental health aspects, but stated that there was enough to hold her. He noted that could change later on.
Judge Williams held the felonies on count one, three, and four. He had misdemeanor hold on counts two, five, six, seven, and eight.
Moving to an SOR release, Gorman stated that Moore has a residence and that she needs to use her medication and the consequences of not having that.
He noted the SOR report listed her as a danger, but that through conversation, he affirmed she knows the situation better now.
With a supervised OR release, Gorman wanted probation to help her to move through the mental health “aspects” and connected with the doctor.
Judge Williams stated that she “would probably benefit more from some sustained medication treatment,” and was concerned about potential offenses.
Gorman confirmed that Moore hadn’t been able to take medication because she had not had them in jail.
DDA Richardson was concerned about the potential for harm to others, stating release would be more likely if there was proper support.
Gorman stated that Moore had turned in pink cards to obtain medication. Gorman suggested “an updated Supervised OR report” and meet in court next week. He made the point of a plan after her potential release.
DDA Williams suggested “a tentative SOR” until a facility becomes available and taking medication meanwhile.
Gorman suggested “what if the court put on the minute order that she could be released to either a mental health treatment program…or if probation is satisfied, that if she’s released into the community to her residence with mental health conditions that that’s sufficient for probation to monitor?”
DDA Richardson responded it was “vague” and that he would wanted “to hear from probation and know that they are satisfied prior to agreeing to release Ms. Moore.”
Judge Williams set the next hearing for Feb. 24 “rereview of SOR,” but kept Moore in-custody for now.
For a future arraignment, Williams would set an arraignment for 9 a.m. on March 4.
Good reporting. A fascinating case with lots of complex facets as to the challenges of a case like this.
Thinking I’m pretty much on the same page as Alan M… the woman needs help, but will not benefit from the criminal system, except as to preventing her to harm herself or others… the SOR, with clear expectations as to medication and counselling, seems to be appropriate.
Fully agree with Alan M, that this was good reporting.