By Haroutun Bejanyan
On December 15, the defense team of Deputy Public Defenders Charles Butler and Emily Fisher, for defendant Kelly Carew, the 26-year-old woman who allegedly bludgeoned a man to death at the Great Value Inn in West Sacramento, made a Penal Code section 995 motion to sever the two charges stacked against the defendant.
Kelly Carew is currently facing the charges of murdering Herbert Ublic Rhodes, Jr., 60, as well as dissuading a witness, the owner of the Great Value Inn.
Mr. Butler justified the defense’s motion to sever the charges on the grounds that, if Carew decided to testify on one of the charges but not the other, she would not be able to do that, since both charges are going to be included in one trial.
He went on to argue that it is her constitutional right to choose to testify to whichever charge she pleases and the court cannot deny her that right.
When Judge David Rosenberg prompted the defense to elaborate beyond the presented hypothetical on the reasoning behind their motion, Butler merely reiterated his initial statement without providing the answer desired by Judge Rosenberg.
Due to insufficient reasoning, the motion to sever was denied.
Judge Rosenberg explained that the charge of murder and the charge of dissuading a witness are intertwined, since they were not separate events, but rather occurred almost simultaneously within the same time frame.
When Kelly Carew was allegedly attacking the victim with a pipe she had paused for a moment to walk over to the observing motel owner, allegedly to urge him not to call the cops, then returned to attacking the victim again. This aspect of the incident was recounted by the judge to demonstrate his reasoning behind the motion denial.
The defense attempted to argue against the ruling, but Judge Rosenberg was firm in his decision. He stated, “It is one act, it occurred at one time, they will come back in one trial.”
