By David Greenwald and Christina Zuniga
Judge David Rosenberg would hold Troy Hensley, a 37-year-old former JV football coach at Dixon High, to answer on charges that he carried out a lengthy sexual relationship with a then 17-year-old student for four months while she was underage.
Mr. Hensley faces 24 charges related to three types of sexual offenses (sex with a minor, oral copulation with a minor, and sexual penetration with a foreign object with a minor) on eight separate dates, dating from May 31, 2012, until the alleged victim turned 18 on September 10, 2012. The alleged victim, however, indicated that there were far more than the eight charged dates and that the sexual relationship started far earlier, before they had intercourse for the first time on May 31.
The defense attorney, Steven Sabbadini, made a Penal Code section 17(b) motion, arguing that all of the charged sexual contact had occurred within four months of her turning 18, and therefore it should be charged as a misdemeanor. Moreover, the alleged victim had testified that she thought she was in love, she wanted to have sex with the defendant, and in text messages after she was of age, she was sexually explicit in graphic details, and was in fact begging for it.
Judge Rosenberg denied the motion “for now,” noting that while the defendant has no criminal record and has been gainfully employed, there is a 20-year age difference and it was an ongoing relationship.
Mr. Troy Hensley is being accused of what had initially started as an innocent coach-to-student relationship, to statutory rape. The alleged victim testified she first met Mr. Troy Hensley at the bar and grill restaurant where she worked.
She had been hired by his wife, Mrs. Hensley, to be a hostess and busser. Mr. Hensley, in addition to working at the restaurant, was coaching the Powder Puff games and was the JV volleyball coach at Dixon High School. The alleged victim said that she and Mr. Hensley were flirtatious around one another and it “made her feel good.”
Between the months of November, 2011, and January, 2012, both the alleged victim and Mr. Hensley had been exchanging texts. In addition, she would stay late at work where they would have drinks, despite the fact she was 17 years old.
But on the night of New Year’s Eve, events changed drastically. The alleged victim and her boyfriend were no longer together. This allowed for visitation between the defendant and the alleged victim during the months of January, 2012, through June, 2012. They would meet in softball fields in Dixon and parks in Davis.
The relationship then escalated to being physical and emotional in May, 2012. The alleged victim claimed to have been in love and saw herself having a future with him, as did he. During these events, the alleged victim claimed to have been given Vicodin and alcohol so she “could loosen up.” Although she had not initially wanted to have intercourse with him, she claimed “I wouldn’t say a lot of things because I wanted to impress him.”
But in January, 2013, Mrs. Hensley found about their affair. She showed up at the alleged victim’s house where the girl denied the claims. She and Mr. Hensley then broke up in April of 2013. Yet the alleged victim, with some help from her parents, decided to report the incident to the Dixon Police Department, but she was hesitant due to prior threats made by Mr. Hensley. She said “He [Mr. Hensley] said that if I ever went to the cops then he would kill me, kill my family, kill his wife, his kids, and himself.”
During a lengthy cross-examination, Mr. Sabbadini attempted to undermine the credibility of the alleged victim.
He questioned the alleged victim as to why she hadn’t told the truth the first time she reported the situation to the police department. She had lied about Mr. Hensley threatening her via text, and her response was “I thought they were text messages.” She also lied about Mr. Hensley threatening her with a gun. In addition, she had never mentioned the use of Vicodin until these proceedings. When Mr. Sabbadini asked why, her response was that she had a bad memory due to three previous concussions and “didn’t really know what she had said about that.”
The last questions before the afternoon session began were the most astounding. Mr. Sabbadini began to question the relationship the victim had with Mr. Hensley’s son. Between the months of November, 2011, and June, 2012, there were over 10,000 texts between them. His son, then 12, had a crush on the alleged victim, yet she would tell the son that age difference did not matter and that they could get married when they were older. She had programed his cell phone to say “[The Alleged Victim] is sexy.”
Mr. Sabbadini would note sexually suggestive and flirtatious text conversations between the two. When asked why she would do that to a 13-year-old child, the victim replied, “I don’t know why, I felt bad because I knew he had a crush on me.”
The charges that Mr. Hensley had sex with the alleged victim when she was underage are backed by corroborating evidence, testified to by Lt. Glenn Glasgow of the Davis Police Department who was able to determine that a Troy Hensley had checked into the Davis Comfort Inn and Suites at least 26 times, many of them when the alleged victim was underage.
The most serious charges against Mr. Hensley are counts 25 and 26 – dissuading a witness and criminal threats. There were two classes of threats that the alleged victim articulated. First, there were what they called minor threats where he would tell her that if she told anyone of their relationship, he would kill her. If she got a new boyfriend he would kill him.
The other threat, described as most serious, occurred on a couch of a hotel room in Davis in March, in which he told her that he would kill her, her family, his family, his kids, his wife, if they found out about the relationship.
At first she indicated that there were threats via text message, however Mr. Sabbadini would be able to get her to acknowledge that no threats occurred via text message. There appear to be no witnesses to the actual threat, though Corporal Keirith Briesenick of the Davis Police Department was able to note from her taped conversation with the alleged victim in May that she made those allegations.
However, Mr. Sabbadini would call the veracity of these threats into question, showing with graphic sexual text messages read into court that, when Mr. Hensley attempted to break off the relationship, she begged him not to.
The alleged victim would testify that her parents and family would eventually pressure her into telling the truth. Originally, she had told officers that they had no sexual relationship before she turned 18.
Eventually, she would arrange a meeting with Dixon police officers in Winters where no one would see her car at the police station – but even here she had denied they had oral sex and denied the threats.
Under re-direct, the alleged victim noted that she had a close relationship with one of the initial Dixon PD officers she had gone to, and was uncomfortable talking about sex in general. This was juxtaopposed by Mr. Sabbadini’s graphic renderings of her text messages.
She testified that Mr. Hensley was the most sexual person she had known and that she felt comfortable talking about sex graphically with him, but not with others.
While the sex with a minor charges are corroborated by the evidence of extensive hotel stays by Mr. Hensley, the threat charges are based only on the testimony of the alleged victim, who acknowledged dishonesty, inconsistent accounts and inconsistent conduct and comments via text message.
Mr. Sabbadini was able to note the discussion with the alleged victim and Corporal Briesenick, who warned her that the criminal threats were the most felonious conduct and that the sex charges were wobblers (may be charged as misdemeanors).
In addition, Mr. Sabbadini was able to get the fact that she filed a worker’s compensation claim with Bud’s Pub and Grill and is filing a lawsuit for their knowing failure to protect her.
Put all of this together, and it might be difficult for a jury to convict on the threat charges, as Mr. Sabbadini would imply in arguing against a holding order.
However, Judge Rosenberg argued that the alleged victim’s testimony was clearly sufficient for a holding order, and denied at this time the motion to reduce charges to misdemeanors, but he noted that this case seems appropriate for a resolution short of trial.
—David M. Greenwald reporting with Christina Zuniga
“The most serious charges against Mr. Hensley are counts 25 and 26 – dissuading a witness and criminal threats. There were two classes of threats that the alleged victim articulated. First, what they called minor threats where he would tell her that if she told anyone of their relationship, he would kill her. If she got a new boyfriend he would kill him.
The other, described as most serious occurred on a couch of a hotel room in Davis in March, in which he told her that he would kill her, his family, her family, his kids, his wife, if they found out about the relationship.”
Who called threats to murder her and her boyfriend “minor threats”? An odd classification, indeed.
—
“The last questions before the afternoon session began were the most astounding.”
“Most astounding” in whose judgment? Assuming that you meant “the last revelations,” I certainly find 26 hotel visits for sex, “sexual penetration with a foreign object with a minor,” threats to murder a dozen or so people, etc., by a 35/36 year old with a 17/18-year-old far more astounding than sexual innuendo texting between a 12/13-year-old and a 16/17-year-old. Not a close call.
“Who called threats to murder her and her boyfriend “minor threats”? An odd classification, indeed.”
Good question. That was actually how the prosecutor differentiated the charges. The reason I think is that the alleged victim said she didn’t take them very seriously. Whereas she described the direct threat in the hotel room differently and so the prosecutor and victim used the term minor and major to differentiate the threats.
On your second point, I guess from our perspective we knew going in what the charges were here, had received the press release from DPD. So in terms of new information, the details of the conversation between the 17 year old alleged victim and the 12 year old boy were pretty stunning. She writes them off as his father’s attempt to get her to be involved in family outings, but the sheer volume suggests perhaps more than that.
Or, maybe just another example of a 35-year-old’s ability to manipulate a groomed minor into being easily available for sex. I also guess the defense attorney would want to come up with something to redirect emphasis from new claims about “loosening up” the victim with drugs and alcohol.
The problem that this case is going to have except on the core charge is there really is no corroboration. So if she is bringing up accusations for the first time in a preliminary hearing, they are relatively easy for a defense counsel to discredit.
A truly sordid affair all the way around but the strangest thing is how a 37 year old man from Dixon checks into a Davis hotel at least 26 times with a 17 year old girl and nobody at the hotel notices anything odd is going on.
Will reasonable people on a jury put together the whole tangled web is a way that supports a victim’s account even part of it includes acts that included only the two of them. The standard defenses for alleged rapists and statutory rapists are relatively easy attacks on the victim’s sexuality and truthfulness. They aren’t necessarily as effective as they are easy to attempt.
“A truly sordid affair all the way around but the strangest thing is how a 37 year old man from Dixon checks into a Davis hotel at least 26 times with a 17 year old girl and nobody at the hotel notices anything odd is going on.”
Because they never saw the girl. He checked in alone each time. They said they thought it was odd that he would be checking into a place 8 miles from his home. But the girl would come in later and they never saw here.
not sure how i feel about the defense trying to make this girl into a ‘perp’, suggesting inappropriate conversations/texts between the then-17yr old girl and a 12-13yr old boy. there’s an age difference, and it doesn’t seem like the best judgement on the part of the girl, but are these conversations of a criminal nature? they occurred between two minors.
it also seems that assuming the accusations against the defendant are real, the girl was certainly not in a position to make good judgements about appropriate relationships. if anything, her conduct with the 12yr old underscores her lack of appropriate judgement/boundaries, and demonstrates that she was more likely to be a target of the defendant. molestors don’t usually choose well-protected victims with a good sense of boundaries.
Iggee: I agree with you in part there. Unfortunately I couldn’t write fast enough to get some of the actual quotes, but there was enough in there that it was an odd thing. Whether she was manipulating him to get to spend more time with the family as she claims (at the behest of Mr. Hensley), she was talking to the kid about one day being a couple and maybe getting married.
“Because they never saw the girl. He checked in alone each time. They said they thought it was odd that he would be checking into a place 8 miles from his home. But the girl would come in later and they never saw here.”
Doesn’t seem like a credible explanation on the hotel’s part.
‘he noted that this case seems appropriate for a resolution short of trial.”
i guess he was signaling the DA to plea bargain this one out.
The two employees that Glasgow talked to never saw a girl with him. One of them could barely ID him. The other could.
My guess as well Mr. Toad.
Again, we keep learning bits of information only in response to comments. Is it reasonable that only the defense side gets clarified and justified as we try to converse here?
Mr. X from Dixon checks in so frequently as to raise staff questions, yet one “could barely ID him”–was he identified or not?–and no one took note of a minor girl traipsing in each time. Mr.Toad is correct.
Backing up to the start of this sordid mess, the defendant’s wife hired the victim to work as a minor in an establishment that serves alcohol. The underage victim was a hostess which, I think, is still a violation of ABC regulations.
If I’m right on this point, one could say that the spouse illegally employing the victim is what gave rise to the later sexual relationship.
Just Saying: It’s about a 1500 word piece on a 6 hour hearing, so I can’t put everything into it. So I can add clarifying points to questions. You asked about the major and minor threats, and that was designated by the prosecution.
Mr. Hensley was identified by one of the two employees, the other employee picked out him but also someone else and wasn’t sure. But in all honesty, this doesn’t seem to be a real point in question because he registered under his own name with his Dixon address. I was simply responding to Mr. Toad’s question about the girl who was never present by design when they checked in.
Phil: They didn’t go into a lot of detail as to what she was doing as part of her job, she did testify that she would stay after hours and drink. That probably gets to your point.
[quote]i guess he was signaling the DA to plea bargain this one out.[/quote]
Has the DA already made an offer?
No idea, they often wait for prelim before doing so since it gives themselves a chance to evaluate the case.
Clarifying process, I saw comment on another site: “the judge obviously believed the victims testimony too and wants to hold him accountable on all charges.”
In a preliminary hearing, the judge views all accusations in the best possible light for the prosecution and if there is an accusation, he leaves it to the jury to determine the facts rather than decides whether or not he believes the testimony.
[quote]The charges that Mr. Hensley had sex with the alleged victim when she was underage are backed by corroborating evidence, testified to by Lt. Glenn Glasgow of the Davis Police Department who was able to determine that a Troy Hensley had checked into the Davis Comfort Inn and Suites at least 26 times, many of them when the alleged victim was underage.[/quote]
Hotel stays without a witness seeing the two of them together at the hotel doesn’t seem like much evidence.
I don’t see how there is enough evidence for conviction let alone a trial.
[quote]The problem that this case is going to have except on the core charge is there really is no corroboration. So if she is bringing up accusations for the first time in a preliminary hearing, they are relatively easy for a defense counsel to discredit.[/quote]
That is what they thought during the Ajay Dev trial but it didn’t seem to matter.
David, I realize the limitations you note. But, you missed my point: “Is it reasonable that only the defense side gets clarified and justified as we try to converse here?”
Also, a question on specifics: Mr. X from Dixon checks in so frequently as to raise staff questions, yet one “could barely ID him”–was he identified or not?–and no one took note of a minor girl traipsing in each time. Mr.Toad is correct.
“The problem that this case is going to have except on the core charge is there really is no corroboration. So if she is bringing up accusations for the first time in a preliminary hearing, they are relatively easy for a defense counsel to discredit.”
I don’t understand that this case has much of a problem. What do you mean by “the core charge”?
Why is new information at a preliminary hearing that big a problem? I guess I’m not as quick to jump to the conclusion that the victim is lying about the criminal actions of the defendant just because the defense attorney (like all defense attorneys) try to discredit victims and their stories.
And, it seems a little early to conclude that “the threat charges are based only on the testimony of the alleged victim, who acknowledged dishonesty, inconsistent accounts and inconsistent conduct and comments via text message.” We’ll see how these things are all tied together, if they are, at the trial.
In the meantime, the defense case seems pretty well covered hers.
Phil: how does the wife hiring a minor as a hostess, even if what she did was illegal, give rise to a sexual relationship with the husband? one doesn’t cause the other. they just demonstrate that the girl, again, was placed in situations she shouldn’t have been in.
Please note that Mr. Hensley is a former JV Football Coach not a current coach.
Why did you not mention the child abuse that occured in the courtroom? The Hensley parents allowed their 12 year old child to sit through the entire prelim. Not only did the 12 yr old learn that his father cheats on his mother he also heard GRAPHIC texts (porn worthy) and heard that his father threatened to murder him and his siblings. Shame on the Hensleys and shame on you for not reporting this fact-everyone saw that child in court.
Nevermentioned: There were a number of things that were never mentioned in the article. We tend to try to focus on the proceedings for one thing and not the audience. It’s probably best to leave it at that for now.
@nevermentioned….I completely agree…thought it was absolutely distasteful to have the innocent children there to listen. But I would think as a parent, you would have more sense? I also sat wondering why the judge allowed it?
It does not fall under child abuse though…but sure it should have been something?
I know for myself, sometimes I am trying so hard to listen, the audience seems unimportant. I know these children were important and this is a terrible thing. However, we cannot speak up in court, it is for the attorneys only. I do not understand why either side spoke against having them present? It seems as though everytime there is an alleged victim, they keep them outside the courtroom til testimony? Just saw this today in a hearing…
It was definitely inappropriate and the worst part is that no adult stood up for these children, or stopped it.
Hopefully, in the trial, if there is one..this will not be allowed.
Thanks for reading..
well said marabjones.
Clearly Mr. hensley does not make appropriate choices regarding children, maybe his wife will next time….
Article should probably mention that the Vangaurd accepts sponsorship money from Hensley’s attorney, Steven Sabbadini.