WOODLAND, CA – In pretrial motions here early Tuesday, Deputy Public Defender Monica Brushia objected to the entirety of statements from a text conversation from the alleged victim, Megan Marie Duncanson, to be used by the prosecution at the Yolo County Superior Court trial of Henry Stanley, the husband of the now-deceased Duncanson.
The trial began in earnest later Tuesday with the first witnesses called to testify.
The accused currently in custody faces three felony charges: threatening a crime with intent to terrorize, inflicting corporal injury on spouse/cohabitant, and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury with an enhancement for circumstances in aggravation.
The Davis Vanguard previously covered this case in August of 2024 when the coroner toxicology report ruled Duncanson’s death suicide by hanging. Stanley had returned to court in August after his wife’s death ruling in order to seek bail after being jailed for a month “on suspicion of killing his wife” according to CBS News.
Stanley was refused bail by Judge Catherine Hohenwarter on the grounds “Stanley, who was found within 100 ft of their residence after an emergency protective order (EPO), which was still in effect the day a criminal protective order was issued. The judge stated the EPO takes “priority” according to the Davis Vanguard.
Judge Hohenwarter added her no-bail ruling was not only due to the previous violation of the accused but the “violence against the wife, and also the court’s concern Stanley is a ‘survivalist,’ based on the information given by the family” reported the Davis Vanguard.
Tuesday morning, Judge Tom M. Dyer commenced court with motion review over statements made by the alleged victim over Linkedin and their admissibility under Evidence Code section 1250 in relation to the alleged victim’s state of mind.
Section 1250, according to JUSTIA, is “Subject to Section 1252, evidence of a statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health).”
Judge Dyer said statements made on Linkedin before the 911 call, but not to law enforcement are “statements are relevant to (Duncanson) being in sustained fear” and admissible under 1250.
Statements made to two individuals by the alleged victim, Judge Dyer stated, were also admissible under 1250 relating to Duncanson’s state of mind.
Judge Dyer referenced People vs. Coleman, when discussing the issue of prejudice, and stated both sets of statements were made two hours before the 911 call, confirming the statements “will be admissible for purposes of showing” Duncanson “was in sustained fear at the time.” There was a statement made to an individual about physical injury.
Judge Dyer disclosed that both sets of messages tie into a larger picture and statements made were in writing which is the requirement pertaining to the people who she was reporting to, under Evidence Code sections 1370 and 1250.
According to CaseText “Section 1370 – Statement concerning inflicted or threatened physical injury upon declarant(a) Evidence of a statement by a declarant is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The statement purports to narrate, describe, or explain the infliction or threat of physical injury upon the declarant.(2) The declarant is unavailable as a witness pursuant to Section 240.(3) The statement was made at or near the time of the infliction or threat of physical injury.
“Evidence of statements made more than five years before the filing of the current action or proceeding shall be inadmissible under this section.(4) The statement was made under circumstances that would indicate its trustworthiness.(5) The statement was made in writing, was electronically recorded, or made to a physician, nurse, paramedic, or to a law enforcement official.”
Deputy Public Defender Brushia questioned if the statements in entirely would be allowed when the trial began after DPD Brushia stated half of the statements relate to Duncanson’s mental state and half do not. DPD Brushia said if this were to be the case then she would be objecting.
Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin replied, “I do believe the entire statement shows her state of mind,” adding Duncanson’s stream of consciousness of what she was feeling and shows her struggle on whether or not to escape the situation.
DDA Serafin stated it’s “relevant to being in a domestic violence relationship and the struggle to leave” and the entire message needs to be admitted.
Judge Dyer referenced other messages on pages 9 and 10 and their relevance, to which DDA Serafin stated they were to understand and give context to what Duncanson was saying.
DPD Brushia responded, stating under EC section 352 that allowing those messages in entirety was prejudice, especially if someone were to “read off the entire text conversation.”
Judge Dyer said he had reviewed the statements by Duncanson, which were filed from the People’s motion yesterday morning and stated, “They are all tied to (Duncanson’s) fear and can be used for that particular purpose.”
Judge Dyer concluded that comments on betrayal or anything along those lines would not be admissible.
Following this motion review, three potential witnesses that may be called at the trial were questioned by the defense and prosecution.
After questioning by DDA Serafin closed, the prosecutor said that “all three witnesses testified they did not examine (Duncanson) for purposes of prosecution,” wanting to move forward with all three witnesses.
DPD Brushia objected to two of the witnesses, noting one witness, due to his occupation, works closely with the Davis Police Department and the other expressed it was their job to collaborate as a team.
Judge Dyer dismissed one of DPD Brushia’s objections, indicating that witness was not gathering evidence and was there for the sole medical purposes.
Judge Dyer referenced the team collaborating argument by stating the witness being called had a brief synopsis from the Davis Police Department and it doesn’t “necessarily create a team environment and (was) there for medical purposes…potential use for the hospital.”
Later, DPD Brushia asked the court to consider the LinkedIn message evidence between Duncanson and a friend and to redact all of the messages sent from the recipient rather than the few messages that had been redacted by DDA Serafin, arguing only Duncanson’s messages were relevant.
DDA Serafin claimed the few messages left unredacted emphasized the context of the situation, in which Duncanson expressed concern for her safety and the recipient responded with condolences and advice.
The court decided to redact all of the recipient’s messages because only Duncanson’s messages were relevant.
In an opening statement late Tuesday to the jurors, DDA Serafin presented transcripts of the 911 call and text messages between Duncanson and the public safety dispatcher, and still images from the dispatched officer’s body cam footage the same day.
DDA Serafin’s first witness, the public safety dispatcher who received Duncanson’s call on July 9, at 10:33 a.m., was asked to read the entire transcript of the call and text message communication between them and Duncanson.
The witness recalls answering Duncanson’s call and hearing a faint voice without comprehensible words, then hearing something to the effect of, “My husband is trying to kill me.”
Due to Duncanson’s low speaking volume, the witness moved their conversation to the Rapid Deploy text conversation program at 10:34 a.m.
It was through the text conversation that Duncanson, said the witness, reiterated, “My husband is trying to kill me,” and shared that she couldn’t remember his date of birth due to a mild concussion. When asked if the concussion was from Stanley hitting her, she responded yes.
Also in the text conversation, Duncanson shared, “He says I deserve to die because I am a vile worm,” and, “I kissed him. He’s been beating me for days, I needed him to calm down so I could call.”
The text conversation ended around 10:45 a.m., around the time officers arrived on the scene.
DPD Brushia asked the witness if he had heard Stanley in the background when Duncanson had called, emphasizing the potential of an extreme environment with the alleged threats of Stanley threatening to kill her.
DPD Brushia argued the statements made by Duncanson, such as that her husband was trying to kill her, were voluntary statements and there was no imminent danger announced by Duncanson during the call and text conversation.
The second witness on the stand Tuesday, Officer Leo Gonzalez, was one of the three officers dispatched to the scene July 9. Arriving at 10:44 a.m. he said he activated his body cam while approaching the front door to knock, attempting to conduct a welfare check.
In Officer Gonzalez’s body cam footage, presented as evidence in court, Duncanson’s cries are heard in the distance when a male subject opens the front door, identified to be Stanley. Stanley denied Officer Gonzalez access to the home for a welfare check.
Stanley was then handcuffed and detained, a measure taken to ensure the safety of potential individuals inside the residence, according to officer Gonzalez.
Officer Gonzalez said he then checked the home for individuals who might need medical attention and then went outside to the side yard of the residence to Duncanson.
She was found, the officer testified, in a fetal position, actively crying, with her arms wrapped around her legs, all of which was recorded and presented by the still images pulled from the body cam footage evidence in court.
Observable in the footage and pointed out by DDA Serafin were several bruises on Duncanson’s arms, all in various healing stages according to their coloring which indicated the span of time Duncanson received the bruising.
Officer Gonzalez reported that while speaking with Duncanson she repeatedly looked over his shoulder and her own shoulder anticipating someone coming.
He said he perceived her to be fearful and expressed that she must have been looking over his shoulder on multiple occasions out of fear of someone, DDA Serafin claimed. The move to strike was sustained by the court.
Officer Gonzalez called for medical dispatch and stayed with Duncanson at the hospital to “collect a better statement of what occurred that prompted the 911 call.”
He testified he contacted Empower Yolo, a nonprofit that assists victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. A domestic violence advocate from the organization came to meet with Duncanson at the hospital.
The trial is scheduled to reconvene Wednesday, beginning with DPD Brushia’s cross-examination of the second witness testimony.
