WOODLAND, CA – A judge here Monday in Yolo County Superior Court admitted it was a “close call,” but ruled in a preliminary hearing an accused meant no harm in a phone message to his probation officer and his charges would be dismissed.
Deputy District Attorney David William Robbins argued an accused should be held to answer for charges in a preliminary trial, but Deputy Public Defender Cheyenne Martin insisted there was insufficient context in the written report and a lack of intent on the accused’s part.
The accused has been charged with threatening injury to an officer on duty after he had left a voicemail for his probation officer on Aug. 20.
DDA Robbins argued the accused should be held to answer the charges given his threatening actions toward Probation Officer Emita Ayoub. To supplement this, he called Officer Ayoub to testify in court about her experience receiving the voicemail.
Officer Ayoub stated she had been working as a PO for three years and conducted field and home visits. Officer Ayoub was familiar with the accused and would meet him one to four times a month, most often in the office since the accused was transient.
Officer Ayoub also communicated she was familiar with the terms of the accused’s prior DUI conviction which required him to take a 12-hour DUI course through Zoom.
When asked, Ayoub emphasized she had no issues with the accused till Aug. 20 when she received a voicemail from the accused, after which she attempted to call him twice but received no response.
At this point, DDA Robbins played the voicemail in court and asked Ayoub about her actions on the day it was received.
Officer Ayoub stated she recognized the accused’s voice and believed he would come into the office with a gun, referring to a statement made in the voicemail.
Officer Ayoub added the accused never came to the office with a gun that day. She was able to establish contact the following day, and said the accused denied making any threats.
According to Ayoub, the accused responded to her by claiming that he didn’t say he “was going to come to the office with a gun,” only that he “might.”
Officer Ayoub stated she took the accused’s statement as a threat, quoting him as saying, “If I talk like a psycho, say I’ll bring a gun down to your office, I might get some respect.”
In response to the voicemail, Ayoub warned her supervisor but because she didn’t know the accused’s location, she described the office being in a “state of limbo.”
DPD Martin questioned Ayoub in regard to the report she submitted following the event, specifically why there were only two quotes included from the entire voicemail, which was much longer. In response, Ayoub claimed those sentences were the only ones containing the threat.
DPD Martin also claimed the context missing from the report was that the accused was having trouble engaging in the DUI course, which was a term of his probation.
DPD Martin quoted the accused as pleading “help me,” and “now if I talk civilized, I get no respect,” asking why this context was omitted in the report. To this, Ayoub claimed these statements did not pertain to the threat.
DPD Martin then asked about the events following the voicemail being received, to which Ayoub explained that she had called the next day to give the accused “a day to cool off.”
Elaborating on this phone call, the officer stated the accused had willingly disclosed his location and was cooperative on the phone call. Following the call, the accused was placed under arrest by probation officers, and his van was searched for firearms.
DPD Martin emphasized how firearms were not found in the van, and he was still being supervised by Ayoub who had visited him alone once a month following the incident.
DDA Robbins asked some final questions of Ayoub, who claimed she arrested the accused with three other officers since she would not have felt safe going alone that day.
DDA Robbins emphasized that when considering California Penal Code § 71, it is important to take into account the fact that there was an attempt to interfere with the duties of a public officer.
According to the DDA Robbins, the “whole point of (the accused’s) direct and aggressive language was to get a reaction from the officer.” He stated, “‘I might’ vs ‘I will’ is not the point,” and there is enough evidence to hold the accused.
Responding to this, DPD Martin stated the accused says “if I talk” which implies that he is talking about using different language. For Penal Code § 71 to apply, there must be proof that the accused threatened an injury, which DPD Martin claimed there wasn’t.
According to DPD Martin, the court recognized the difference between the brandishing of a firearm and the attempted use of a firearm, the first of which indicates no threat of an injury.
DPD Martin also called into question Ayoub’s report, stating that she simply chose to interpret the accused’s words as attempted use of a firearm instead of brandishing, and “a lot can be ascertained from her choice to include only two sentences” of the voicemail.
In DPD Martin’s words, the accused is a “model probationer” who “needed help” and in an attempt to get that help “he’s talking about using different language.”
Further, DPD Martin asserted the accused has to intend to follow through on his actions in order for his words to be considered a threat. The accused’s actions in providing his address and cooperating with the arresting officers speak to his intent, according to DPD Martin.
While acknowledging that the accused did not speak respectfully enough, DPD Martin argued there was not enough evidence to hold the accused.
DDA Robbins said that “he wanted that threat to be taken seriously.”
Using the analogies of a school or court, DDA Robbins claimed that at any other organization, such language would be considered a threat and would trigger a bigger response. According to DDA Robbins, the talk of bringing a gun constitutes the intent to do harm.
In a final statement, DPD Martin claimed the accused was simply trying to attract attention to get help, maintaining context matters, and the accused did not want to shoot anyone, as indicated by his unambiguous language.
Judge Catherine Hohenwarter called the decision “a close call,” stating she understood officers were only trying to carry out their duties, and that the accused was frustrated and was asking for help.
Considering all the context, Judge Hohenwarter decided not to hold him to answer for the charges, stating, “I don’t think he had the intent to cause any fear or harm.” However, she expected him “to talk very respectfully” to probation officers, moving forward.
