By Catherine Woodward
DUI Trial – Brandon Robinson, represented by Attorney Amy Caskey, is charged with driving under the influence, with additional enhancements for having a high blood alcohol content. His jury trial began on Wednesday, May 8. Deputy District Attorney Brandon Finn is prosecuting on behalf of the People.
Around 4:45 a.m. on August 11, 2012, CHP Officers Vazquez and Salizzoni responded to a single-vehicle collision on southbound I-5, just north of Woodland. The vehicle had crashed through several fence posts and the perimeter fence before coming to rest straddling an irrigation ditch. It was still dark outside, and there were not any streetlights. The officers initially believed that the vehicle had been abandoned, but upon approach they saw three men inside. Officer Salizzoni helped the occupants get out of the vehicle safely. Due to the vehicle’s precarious position, Officer Salizzoni testified that it would have been difficult, but not impossible, for the men to change seats.
The three friends had rented a Zipcar and were returning from a rap concert in Chico. Mr. Robinson confirmed that he was the driver of the vehicle. Initially, Mr. Robinson said that he didn’t know what had happened, but he later said that he must have dozed off. The two passengers affirmed that Mr. Robinson had been the one driving the vehicle, but neither knew what had caused the collision.
Officer Vazquez described Mr. Robinson as having red, watery eyes, slurred speech, an unsteady gait, and the odor of alcohol on his breath. Upon questioning, Mr. Robinson said that he had had 3 beers between 9 and 10:30 p.m. the night before. Officer Vazquez administered several field sobriety tests. A field breath test measured Mr. Robinson’s blood alcohol content at 0.157% – almost twice the legal limit. After failing all of field sobriety tests, Mr. Robinson was placed under arrest.
About an hour after the collision, evidentiary breath tests administered at the CHP Woodland office revealed that Mr. Robinson’s BAC was 0.14%. Both the device used at the scene and the one in the CHP office were calibrated and functioning correctly on the date of the incident. During the entire investigation, Mr. Robinson maintained that he had been the driver.
Ms. Caskey argued that her client, Mr. Robinson, had not been driving the vehicle at all. Instead, he made the foolish decision to say that he had been the driver in order to protect his friend. The CHP officers did not administer any sobriety tests to the passengers, because they said that they hadn’t been driving.
The evidentiary phase of the trial will continue on Thursday, May 9 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 8.
Judge Holds Man to Stand Trial on Robbery and Resisting Arrest Charges
By Ibrahim Baig
On Wednesday, May 8, Judge David Rosenberg ruled to hold Oscar Bucio accountable for robbery in the second degree and resisting or obstructing peace officers.
Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt represents Bucio, while Deputy District Attorney Alvina Tzang represents the People.
For today’s preliminary hearing the court heard from Officer Gill.
According to Officer Gill, when he arrived at the scene, the storeowner Nadeem Hussein was waiting outside. Sergeant Winger later arrived, and started making announcements over the PA system for Bucio to come out.
Gill learned from Hussein that the defendant came up to the counter and pounded on the counter top with his hand. The defendant said, “Give me everything you got.” Instead Hussein hit the silent alarm and ran out. He locked his store with the defendant inside. No other individuals were in the store.
When Gill arrived, he put his spotlights on in the store and could see the defendant taking cash from the cash register. Even Hussein said he saw the defendant taking cash.
Also, Gill reviewed video recordings of the incident. He saw the same incident through various camera angles. He believes Bucio was in and out of the store for 30 to 45 minutes.
Officer Gill believes after about 20 minutes, when the defendant did not respond to Sergeant Winger’s request to come out, the other officers made a plan to approach the store.
They acquired a key from Hussein. After they propped open the door to the store, Sergeant Winger then made a few announcements that dogs would be used unless Bucio came out.
Bucio did not respond again. In fact, Officer Gill testified before the officers entered the store, Bucio was smoking inside the store. He went over to the beverage section of the store and Gill believes he took an 18 pack of beer. Bucio was nonresponsive to Sergeant Winger’s requests.
A dog was sent in and took hold of Bucio’s forearm. Officer Gill followed suit and took down Bucio and handcuffed him.
When Ms. Tzang asked Officer Gill why a dog was used, Gill said he could not speak to that, as it was another officer’s decision to use the dog.
Officer Gill also testified Bucio was in the hospital the night before he was transferred to county jail. Bucio was in the hospital getting a dogtooth out of his arm.
Officer Gill also does not remember anyone saying over dispatch that Bucio was acting “a little looney,” nor does he recall an officer mentioning 5150.
Gill does remember that Officer Watson searched Bucio when he was apprehended and found nearly two hundred dollars on Bucio. Two hundred dollars is approximately the amount Hussein had in a moneybox under the cash register.
After Officer Gill was excused, Mr. Van Zandt engaged in a lengthy debate over audio recordings he wished to play for the court. These audio recordings would reveal such comments as “he’s a little looney,” “5150,” “negative on weapons,” and “language barrier.”
Van Zandt stated the People charged Bucio with resisting arrest. However, if he did not understand the officers, he could not be held accountable for this charge. The language barrier comment refers to Nadeem Hussein.
Judge Rosenberg told Mr. Van Zandt this was a preliminary hearing, not a trial. He only needed to hear relevant evidence.
Mr. Van Zandt responded that what was relevant is what officers said on the audio recording, not who made the comments.
However, Judge Rosenberg found another issue with the audio recording; he questioned its authenticity.
Ms. Tzang added an officer could not qualify to speak about the defendant’s state of mind. Judge Rosenberg disagreed. He stated a lay witness could certainly testify to that.
Finally, Judge Rosenberg decided to listen to the audio recording.
After listening to the recording Judge Rosenberg, found it to be authentic. Ms. Tzang said the recording was difficult to hear and she could not hear what the defense wanted the court to hear. Also, no one in the court could benefit from a transcript to aid in following what was said on the audio recording.
I would have to agree with Ms. Tzang, except I did catch some of the comments Mr. Van Zandt referenced.
On the audio recording, the dispatcher had difficulty understanding, said Mr. Van Zandt. I heard an officer give a description of the defendant. I heard another officer state, “He’s acting a little looney.” Yet another officer could be heard saying the back door to the store was locked. Later the same officer said, “Language barrier. Nothing on the back door.”
Bucio’s preliminary hearing ended with arguments from both lawyers.
Mr. Van Zandt argued Bucio was not actively resisting arrest. In fact, he had a legal right to do nothing when the officers requested him to come out.
Judge Rosenberg found this hard to believe. He stated the law does not work that way. When officers ask a suspect to do something, the suspect is obliged to comply with the officer’s request; it is not the same as civil disobedience.
Van Zandt refers to a case in 1993 when cops asked a man named Hiroda for identification and he did not show identification.
Judge Rosenberg says people can resist an unlawful order from cops, but they have to comply with a lawful order.
The People added that obstructing or delaying cops can be penalized under Penal Code section 148. Just because he did nothing, this may not go to resisting but he did delay cops.
Mr. Van Zandt moved on and stated the law could not objectively find this incident to be robbery or attempted robbery. He does not deny Hussein interpreted Bucio’s comment, “Give me everything you got,” as Bucio was going to rob Hussein. However, this comment was not followed by the use of force and Bucio was acting strangely.
Mr. Van Zandt reminded the court Bucio was in and out of the store for 30 to 45 minutes before he pounded on the counter. Furthermore, Bucio’s conduct, when Sergeant Winger started making requests for Bucio to come out, could not be explained by the rational mind.
Ms Tzang argued an element of robbery is a person takes something and moves a distance, even if it were a short distance.
The defendant took money but he did not leave the store. He was in the process of robbing the store. The defendant also took other items from the store, including cigarettes.
Hussein, Officer Gill, and a car camera video can all show Bucio took money out from the cash register.
Tzang also added Hussein left the store, due to fear of being robbed. Therefore, the defendant caused Hussein to leave. Hussein did wait outside for officers to arrive, thus items were stolen from Hussein in his immediate presence, which goes to the robbery charge.
As for Bucio walking in and out of the store, Tzang holds that Bucio was watching other customers. When no other customers were present, that is when Bucio made his move and started demanding money from Hussein.
Ms Tzang concluded that the 5150 issue is something for the jury to decide.
Another important note is Hussein did not see any weapons on Bucio, but this only meant Hussein had no knowledge of any weapons on Bucio.
Judge Rosenberg agreed the jury can evaluate Bucio’s conduct and intent. He held Bucio to answer the robbery and resisting charges.
Bucio’s matter will be further reviewed on May 23 at 10 a.m. in Department 4 of the Yolo County Superior Court.
The only discrepancy I see in the DUI case is a defense attorney presenting a defense that is contradictory to the statements of the driver and both passengers.