by Catherine Woodward
Paul Dufrisne’s jury trial began on the afternoon of Wednesday, May 15, in Department 8. Mr. Dufrisne is charged with resisting arrest, contempt of a court order, and assaulting a police officer. Deputy Public Defender Heather Hopkins represents Mr. Dufrisne, while Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes represents the People.
In his opening statement, Mr. Hasapes stressed that Mr. Dufrisne does not have any respect for authority. He urged the jury to give teeth to restraining orders, which are issued by the court for a specific reason. Mr. Dufrisne violated the terms of the restraining order against him, resisted arrest, and assaulted the police officer who was attempting to detain him. Consequently, Mr. Hasapes urged the jury to find the defendant guilty on all counts.
On the other hand, Ms. Hopkins argued that Mr. Dufrisne was not being aggressive, but rather rambling on and showing paperwork to the officer. Only four minutes elapsed from when the officer exited her patrol vehicle until she tased the defendant four times, including once when he was on the ground. Since the police officer was not lawfully performing her duties, Ms. Hopkins asked the jury to find Mr. Dufrisne not guilty of the charges against him.
Mrs. Carol Weston, the manager at Country Villa Estates retirement community in Esparto, testified that she and her husband got a restraining order against Mr. Dufrisne because he was causing problems with the residents whenever he visited his father. Residents had complained that the defendant was threatening them, and once he even threatened the witness’s husband with a stick.
Mr. Robert Weston, wife of the first witness and co-manager of Country Villa Estates, provided more information about the restraining order. They obtained it in 2010, and the court order was in place for three years. Mr. Dufrisne was ordered to remain at least 200 yards away from both Mr. and Mrs. Weston at all times, and he was prohibited coming within the same distance of Country Villa Estates. However, he would be allowed to visit his father, who lived in the mobile home park, if he notified the Westons ahead of time and was accompanied by a police officer.
In early 2012, the Westons called the police several times because the defendant was on the property without a police officer. However, around 10 p.m. on February 7 of that year, Deputy Raco Matsura contacted Mr. Dufrisne on the property by chance. While leaving the neighborhood after responding to a false alarm, she encountered a man on a bicycle, whom she recognized as Mr. Dufrisne. Deputy Matsura had previously contacted Mr. Dufrisne, so she knew that there was a court-issued restraining order in place prohibiting him from entering the property. She yelled at him to stop, but he continued pedaling.
Once Deputy Matsura got out of her patrol vehicle, she ordered him to get on the ground. When he did not, she repeated the command several times. She warned him that she was going to taser him, but he still did not obey her instructions to get on the ground. Deputy Matsura had to taser the defendant twice, but he ripped the pads off and threw them back at her. Finally, the deputy got him on the ground, but he continued to resist her. In order to protect herself from the defendant’s kicks, she tasered him two more times. Only with the help of two innocent bystanders was Deputy Matsura able to get Mr. Dufrisne into handcuffs.
Deputy Matsura’s testimony will continue on Thursday morning at 9 a.m. The trial is expected to last 3 days.
Medical Marijuana Case
By Virginia Hysell
On May 13, 2013, in Department 2 of the Yolo County Superior Court, Judge Timothy Fall presiding, the jury was selected for People v. Chad Maseo Conley (Case Number 11-0001818-002). Philip Cozens appeared for the Defense and Fevrero for the People.
Questions for the jury ranged from their thoughts on medical marijuana and whether the Compassionate Care Act should not have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes in the state of California, to potential jurors’ personal experiences with marijuana or with marijuana users.
The charges against Chad Maseo Conley are: Count 1, felony violation of Health and Safety Code 11360(A), the sale of marijuana; and Count 2, felony violation of Health and Safety Code 11359, the possession of marijuana. Conley pled not guilty to both counts. I expect the defense to argue that the marijuana possessed by Mr. Conley was for medicinal proposes only.
The individuals he frequently texted or called were Trenmark, Jessie Clone, Tommy Erica, and two others. The Detective stated that, although he could provide the conversations exchanged via text messaging, he was unable to receive the recordings of the phone calls (nearly 200 of them) exchanged between Conley and his “friends.”
The second witness for the people was Michael Stolzfous, a peace officer on October 22, 2007. He was asked about a drug-related case regarding Armand Bobbit, whom he later identified as Chad Conley.
He was questioned about the incident of October 22, 2007 at 9:50 p.m. in Granada, California, where he came across individuals hovering around a car which he believed that they had been breaking into.
As he approached the vehicle, he approached Mr. Bobbit (later identified as Conley,) and asked him if it were his car, and he said yes. As the Sacramento police officer continued to go after the other individuals he had suspected were attempting to break into the car, he noticed that Mr. Bobbit had been trying to flee the scene. He rerouted and went after Mr. Bobbit. Afterward, Office Stolzfous found marjuana and a bag of cocaine located inside Mr. Bobbit’s car.
As Officer Stolzfous continued answering questions from the People, Philip Cozens for the defense asked to approach, and the jury was asked to step out for a moment. Afterward, Judge Fall asked the People why he had been questioning this witness when in the ruling in limine regarding this previous conviction was stipulated to not be brought up during trial. He stated that it was purely a mistake and that he didn’t “cross his t’s and dot his i’s.”
He stated that, from Conley’s three prior cases, the officers of the other two which were admitted to be questioned about in court were unable to testify before the court and that this officer was the only one able to do so. Judge Fall allowed continued questioning, so long as it did not lead to questions regarding his conviction.
