Defendant Charged with Possession of Drugs, Weapons
By Virginia Hysell
On January 29, 2013, at approximately 7:05 a.m., Yolo County Deputy Sheriff’s Deputy Dugoenich responded to a 911 call in Knight’s Landing from Blanca Sentinman. She had reported that her boyfriend of a little less than 2 years, Alejandro Yanez-Garcia, was under the influence of methamphetamines and had shot himself in the left arm. She reported that he had been in the bedroom at the residence, yelling in pain and screaming for his younger brother, Jonathan. When Blanca offered her assistance to her boyfriend he refused.
On May 10, 2013 the case of People v. Alejandro Yanez-Garcia (Case No. 13-575-2) was brought before Judge Paul K. Richardson in Department 1 of the Yolo Superior Court. The charges were alleged possession of illegal substance while in presence of a loaded and operable firearm, misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and possession of methamphetamine.
Deputy Dugoenich was brought to testify before the court. As Deputy Dugoenich entered the premises that morning, he witnessed defendant Yanez-Garcia being pushed on a gurney into an ambulance. Dugoenich stated that at this point he was able to catch a glimpse of his face, from which he was able to identify Mr. Yanez-Garcia in court. During a search of the premises the following were located: a light bulb with residue, a green pen with residue within it, a bag on the bed containing 24 grams of methamphetamine, a white glove on the nightstand next to the bed containing 13 white pills labeled “ex,” as well as the .22 caliber gun from which Yanez-Garcia was shot.
Nearly a week later, on February 7, 2013, Deputy Dugoenich had visited the house in Knight’s Landing once more. The deputy identified Yanez-Garcia from the brief glimpse of him that day and placed him under arrest. Yanez-Garcia was transported to the Yolo County jail, where the deputy testified that he had read Yanez-Garcia his Miranda rights. The deputy also testified to the possession of the gun and methamphetamines.
Yanez-Garcia had admitted to Deputy Dugoenich that the .22 caliber, which caused the injury and was found at the scene, was his father’s, and that he was cleaning it for him because “he liked it to be clean.” He stated that the thirteen pills marked “ex” found in a white rubber glove in the bedroom next to the bed were prescribed to him from an incident six months earlier when he had been shot in the right leg. Additionally, he told the deputy that he had snorted from the bag found underneath him that day and that he had been a habitual user of methamphetamine for the past 5 years.
During this preliminary pre-hearing conference, the Yolo County Public Defender argued that this was not the “classical case” of an individual being under the influence in possession of firearms but was, in fact, in Yanez-Garcia’s case, lacking in “legislative intent.” Counsel referred the court to Health and Safety Code section 11376.5 (b)(e).
Judge Paul K. Richardson found that there was enough evidence in all three of the charges against Alejandro Yanez-Garcia to hold him to answer. This case will continue before Judge David Rosenburg on May 24at 10:00 a.m. in Department 4.
Trial Begins in Domestic Abuse Case
By Ibrahim Baig
Rakesh Kumar is facing four counts including corporal injury, assault by force and intimidating a witness and victim. The victim in question is Angela Grom, Kumar’s ex-fiancée.
The trial began to unfold on Monday, May 13, with opening statements from Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays, representing the People, and Attorney Christopher Parkhurst representing Mr. Kumar.
The People stated that Angela Grom and Rakesh Kumar met through the eHarmony dating site. After dating for awhile, they became engaged and Angela Grom moved in with Kumar at the Aggie Village Cottages on the UC Davis campus. At some point, their relationship became violent.
There were several incidents in which Kumar physically harmed Ms. Grom. One such incident involved a discussion of Grom’s mother dating other men after she divorced Grom’s father. This discussion escalated to a point where Kumar caused bruising on Grom’s shoulder. Both parties reasoned the sources of this issue were due to differences in culture.
Later, Kumar sent an email saying that he does not like to get angry. Ms. Grom then agreed to speak with Kumar in order to work out their differences. This time they involved Ms. Grom’s mother, over the phone. However, this discussion also resulted in Kumar beating Ms. Grom.
The People state that Ms. Grom’s mother could hear the fight over the phone. Grom’s mother called for the police and desperately tried to remember the address to Kumar’s residence.
Another time, Ms. Grom suffered injuries was when she was ironing Kumar’s shirt. Kumar walked in and stated “it was over” to Grom. Grom did not understand Kumar and kept him from leaving in order to open a dialogue with him. Instead, Kumar grabbed his shirt from Grom while she exclaimed that her fingers were entrapped in the shirt, which resulted in a broken finger.
At the doctor, Ms. Grom lied and said her finger had been broken from practicing yoga.
Ms. Grom finally had enough when she was mailed a document from Kumar. This document stated Kumar would pay her money for the damages he incurred upon her and in exchange she would not press charges.
Ms. Grom thought this was not right and decided to press charges.
When Christopher Parkhurst began his opening for the defense, he stated that the account of this story is more like a “he said, she said” case.
Mr. Parkhurst said the evidence will show there were no signs of physical abuse. Nothing abusive ever occurred at the Cottages, which was Kumar’s residence and was where Ms. Grom spent most of her time. The finger incident was also an accident. Furthermore, the doctor’s report is not consistent with domestic violence cases.
The defense admitted that differences in culture and personalities increased problems between Kumar and Grom, but Grom caused the problems in their relationship. Mr. Parker declared that Ms. Grom has emotional problems, and once pepper sprayed Kumar when she was drunk.
When Kumar broke off the engagement, Grom threatened to have him deported unless he paid money.
On the advice from colleagues, Kumar sought a lawyer for help. The lawyer drafted a contract but he never mailed it to her. He did mail Ms. Grom her belongings. She had an opportunity to be at his house and snatched the contract. That is when she decided to report abuse.
After opening statements were heard, the People called Angela Grom to the stand.
Ms. Grom confirmed she had met Rakesh Kumar through that eHarmony dating site. She was 27 years old at the time. She was going to Sacramento State University, while working part time at a law firm. Kumar had a PhD in plant sciences.
She described Kumar as sweet and charming, and she had a lot of fun with him. Once she was engaged to Kumar, she lived with him from December of 2011 to June or July of 2012. She continued paying rent at her residence in Sacramento.
Mr. Kumar did not contribute financially to Ms. Grom’s living expenses in Sacramento before they were engaged. After they were engaged, Mr. Kumar gave Ms. Grom a credit card to use. The credit card came with a condition: Ms. Grom could buy whatever she liked as long as she informed Kumar of the purchase and as long as he did not contest the purchase.
Ms. Grom did put money on the credit card for loans and also bought a wedding dress before Kumar proposed to her. She knew Kumar was going to propose to her because he stated that next year they would be married. Kumar’s friends also told her of his intentions.
Therefore, when Ms. Grom told Kumar she was going to buy a wedding dress with the credit card, he did not challenge the purchase. Once Kumar proposed, she readily accepted his proposal. She testified she loved him and was “head over heels” for him.
Angela Grom then described one of the first altercations she had with Mr. Kumar. She attended Kumar’s friend’s party in Davis. There, Kumar and Grom had wine. Grom then witnessed an event which made her feel uncomfortable.
One of Kumar’s married friends was lying in bed with two other women. Grom said this man was rubbing against the other women and feeding them grapes. At some point Grom and Kumar left the party and were walking back toward their car.
During this walk, Grom stated how uncomfortable she felt at the party. She described to Kumar what made her feel uncomfortable. Grom said Kumar told her it was no big deal. When she continued expressing her discomfort, Kumar slapped her and said not to talk like that in public.
Instead of returning home with Kumar, she left him. The next day, however, they rekindled their relationship. Kumar emailed Ms. Grom and held she was out of line, but he was sorry. Ms. Grom reasoned she could have had too much wine, and perhaps did say something out of line.
However, more arguments were to follow in their relationship. One such argument involved criticizing each other’s drinking habits.
Ms. Grom described Kumar as mad when he starts drinking. She said that he will begin to drink entire bottles, once he has ingested enough alcohol.
One time Kumar and Grom were on a cruise, when Kumar made a comment about Grom’s drinking. He said all she did on the cruise was drink. In additionm he said women were not supposed to drink. Since Grom drank it meant she was an alcoholic. Ms. Grom interpreted Kumar’s words as a reflection of his background, growing up in India, and that he was misinformed.
In fact, there were other arguments that stemmed from their cultural differences. Ms. Grom testified that when her mother divorced her husband and began dating other men, Kumar had an outburst over the matter.
Other outbursts included arguments over Ms. Grom’s education. Ms. Grom testified she was criticized for obtaining her bachelor’s degree at the age of 27. Kumar did not want to marry her when she was so far behind him in terms of education and academics.
Kumar also had an issue with Ms. Grom’s ex-boyfriends, especially since one of them was a Muslim.
Ms. Grom also testified that near her graduation, Kumar physically abused her in a laundry room at the Cottages. She got a black eye and some bruising on the side of head while she attempted to block his hands.
The court decided to break at this point, and will resume tomorrow with Ms. Grom’s testimony.
