VANGUARD COURT WATCH: No Cells in “Mayberry” When a Defendant Wants Jail Time

By Charmayne Schmitz

On Thursday, we heard the closing arguments in the case of People vs. Madderra. The defendant was charged with selling cigarettes to a minor in a sting operation. It was her second day of work as a cashier.

Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes stressed that the law is the law and every law has consequences. The defendant made a bad decision. It doesn’t matter if she did not have the experience or the knowledge.

Hasapes used his signature story about a “Parachuteless Parachuter” to explain the concept of beyond a teasonable doubt. It’s reasonable to believe that if you jump out of an airplane you would die if the chute doesn’t open. There may be stories reported of someone who lived, but it’s not reasonable to believe a person would live.

There are three elements the People had to prove in this case. First, that tobacco was sold. The receipt proves that element. Second, the person is under 18, proven by his driver’s license submitted in evidence. The only element left to prove is the question of knowledge, whether the defendant knew or SHOULD have known the purchaser was under 18. The purchaser offered his driver’s license, so she made an assumption he was over 18. Hasapes said this was not a mistake on her part, it was a bad decision. The law is the law and she is guilty of breaking the law.

Deputy Public Defender Amy Caskey brought in the argument that hindsight is 20/20. Humans make mistakes. She asked the jury to think about the effect a guilty verdict will have on her future.

Caskey also discussed the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt, saying it’s an abiding conviction that she is guilty. The defendant testified that she knows now what she did is wrong. But there was no intent to break the law. There must be a union of intent and the act. She had to know at the time of the act. There is no intent.

Caskey said Ms. Madderra had no training or support. It’s reasonable to make a mistake. Innocent mistakes don’t make you guilty, and it’s reasonable that she did not have the knowledge.

The jury reached a guilty verdict in about two hours. The jury was released and the defendant was immediately sentenced. The penalty for this crime is a fine of $1,084. The defendant asked for jail time in lieu of a fine, because she is unemployed. This resulted in a lengthy discussion about how to convert dollars into days of jail time. With the current requirements to lower the number of prison inmates, Ms. Madderra could possibly be sent to jail for one day and then released. Judge McAdam said he can’t guarantee she would serve any time – it’s not like “Mayberry” where there’s always an open cell.

The discussion got really interesting at this point. The judge asked Hasapes why the prosecutor went after the clerk instead of the retailer. The deputy district attorney responded that the retailer is unable to sell tobacco for 10 days. The judge continued to comment that it’s odd that an hourly retail worker is punished for a mistake and that it defies logic. The worker has already lost her job. The manager should be in court.

Caskey commented that the district attorney refuses to negotiate at all. Hasapes offered to talk to his supervisor about the issue.

In the end it was decided to go with the fine, but it would not be imposed until four months in the future. Judge McAdam ended by suggesting Ms. Madderra might wish to file a complaint with the labor board.

Defendant Found Guilty in Drug Trial

By Catherine McKnight

The short three-day criminal trial of People v. Smith had its jury instructions, closing arguments and verdict on Wednesday, April 24.

The defendant, Renee Smith, has been charged with four counts, including: transportation of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, possessing an object to unlawfully inject or smoke out of, and being under the influence of methamphetamine while driving.

In closing, Deputy DA Crystal Junge pointed out that the first two counts have similar elements that need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. She said that when Ms. Smith was searched they found .02 grams of methamphetamine in the pipe in the center conssole and another .02 in a glass container. She claimed Ms. Smith knew it was readily available in her vehicle.

During Deputy Public Defender Monica Brushia’s closing, she defended her client by claiming that it is difficult to claim who actually knew the drugs were present. She admitted that Ms. Smith used and that another passenger in the car, Mr. Reynolds, said they used on the way to Cache Creek Casino. Ms. Brushia said that the police officer could arrest Ms. Smith for being under the influence, but that is all he could have arrested her for. She claimed they all had possession and they all had been using.

She kept asking the question, “When did that happen? Somewhere from their home to the casino. We don’t know.” Her point being that it cannot be proven that they were using the methamphetamine in Yolo County, where there is jurisdiction. The home they left from was not in Yolo County. Ms. Brushia emphasized the point that we cannot hear about what happened in other counties and that it must be established in Yolo County.

She also said that for count 2, the evidence is the drugs that were found in the center console. However, given Deputy Hallenbeck’s testimony, no one has really established that Ms. Smith used in this county. Ms. Brushia claimed there has been inconsistent testimony with Dep. Hallenbeck.

“Ms. Smith had to know that the meth was there, not maybe.” There is no evidence that suggests she knew the glass container was there on the way to the casino. Ms. Smith had also never acknowledged the drugs were there, Ms. Brushia explained. There was also no testimony given by anyone about how long methamphetamine lasts in one’s system when they use, and how long someone is going to be high.

Ms. Brushia ended by saying that she is guilty on counts 3 and 4, but that is all. Ms. Junge rebutted by saying it does not matter when they used, it is enough that they ended up at Cache Creek, in Yolo County.

After a short deliberation in the afternoon of April 24, the jury came back with the verdict of guilty on all counts.

Categories: