WOODLAND, CA – Deputy Public Defender Kumar Sankara raised concerns regarding the primary, and only, witness testimony in a jury trial for a 2023 DUI/driving under the influence case here Tuesday morning at Yolo County Superior Court.
On the evening of September 10, 2023, on-duty
Jeffrey Beck, a Davis police officer, testified he responded, on Sept. 10, 2023, to a 911 call for a medical emergency possibly related to alcohol in Davis.
Officer Beck said he contacted the witness, who claimed she witnessed the accused driving and swerving on the road, recounting how the vehicle eventually drove up on a curb, and how she decided to approach the vehicle to ask the driver if she could drive him home to prevent an accident.
Beck said he was told that within the witness’ vehicle was a friend, who was driving at the time of the events. According to the bodycam footage featured in the hearing, the witness detailed telling the accused “let me drive you home.”
The accused, the officer noted he was informed, moved into the passenger seat of the vehicle the witness was in, and the witness then assumed the driver’s seat. The accused was, at this time, still responsive enough to provide directions to his residence.
The witness continued, explaining to Beck that on the drive to the accused’s residence he began to show concerning symptoms of alcohol poisoning. When the accused leaned over, and began to drool, the witness decided to start driving him to the hospital instead. On the way, they ran out of gas and pulled over, to have one of the witnesses run and grab more gas.
The accused’s symptoms only worsened, Beck said he was told, and it was at this point in time where his eyes began to roll back and he started to lose consciousness—so the witness called emergency services.
When the officer arrived at the scene, as showcased in the bodycam footage, the witness was standing on the sidewalk while AMR and the Davis Fire Department began administering aid.
Later that day, after the officer said he interviewed the accused, a blood alcohol test was administered, and Officer Beck placed the accused under arrest.
The accused is now facing three charges, including: drunk driving with an enhancement for excessive blood alcohol or refusal, driving under the influence with an enhancement for excessive blood alcohol or refusal, and an unlicensed driver charge.
Prior to the jury trial, DPD Sankara objected to providing the witness testimony to the jury.
DPD Sankara stated in the previous trial hearing the witness testified she did give a statement to the police, it was truthful, and she did in fact, recall those statements. However, the witness claims she no longer remembers what happened, and in response, DPD Sankara objected.
DPD Sankara’s objection was contained in the scope of Evidence Code section 1237(b), which states that “(e)vidence of a statement previously made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if…the statement concerns a matter as to which the witness has insufficient present recollection to enable him to testify fully and accurately.”
Judge Stephen Mock overruled the objection, stating Officer Beck’s body-cam footage memorialized the conversation between him and the witness.
The second objection pertained to constitutional confrontation, as the witness no longer remembers what happened and cross-examination may be limited/difficult as a result.
Judge Mock agreed the unique facts of the case has made it most likely difficult for the defense to find a case precedent.
Judge Mock overruled the defense, allowing the testimony to be included, and stated that if later within that trial the witness would recount something drastically different, then the attorneys would have a sidebar to discuss further steps.
Later during cross-examination with Officer Beck, DPD Sankara asked if the officer had interviewed the other witness at the scene, and would it have confirmed the witness’ story. The officer replied that it would have.
However, Beck said he chose not to interview the other witness, assuming it to be the witness’ friend, as the witness was exhibiting “strange” behavior, plus he needed to interview the accused.
Officer Beck was then asked whether or not he would be able to recognize when someone was under the influence of drugs, and he replied yes. The officer was then asked if the other witness appeared under the influence. Officer Beck said he could have been and that “it was an unusual circumstance so (he) had some concerns.”
The trial will reconvene at Yolo County Superior Court later this week, and the accused is to remain on supervised own recognizance release.
