More Testimony Heard in Robbery Case

Share:

By Hannah Poploskie

Witness testimony continued on Monday afternoon in the robbery case of defendants Joshua Armond Cadenaz-Lopez and Ricky Gomez Hernandez.

The trial reconvened with Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes resuming his questioning of the witness from the morning, who knew Mr. Cadenaz-Lopez. Mr. Hasapes asked her if she had any awareness of the defendant possessing firearms. She responded that she was unaware.

She clarified the make and model of her car and that when she was away on a trip she was notified that her car was in the possession of the Sacramento Police Department.

When she went to pick up her car, she found it in much different condition from when she lent it to the defendant. The passenger side mirror was missing, and the car was covered in stickers. Mr. Hasapes concluded his questioning.

In his cross-examination, defense attorney Jem Martin, who is representing Mr. Cadenaz-Lopez, asked the witness to clarify what a “Broderick Boy” is, to which she replied that it was a person who was raised in the Broderick neighborhood of West Sacramento. When asked if being a Broderick Boy was a choice that was made, she replied it was not.

Mr. Martin concluded his cross-examination by asking the witness if the mirror given to her by Sacramento police department was her missing car mirror, which she denied. Deputy Public Defender Lisa Lance, the representative for Mr. Hernandez, asked if the witness could confirm whether she knew the individual in a photograph, and she affirmed that she recognized Mr. Hernandez. When asked where the photo was taken, the witness replied that it was at a family function for Mr. Cadenaz-Lopez, since that was the only place she had met Mr. Hernandez. The witness was then dismissed in this case, the primary case.

The judge explained to the jury that the witness was being questioned in a countersuit, which questioning was led by Mr. Martin. He began by asking the witness if Mr. Cadenaz-Lopez took any drugs to her knowledge. She confirmed that he had taken marijuana as well as pain killers. It was then asked if the witness had seen the defendant passed out from the usage of drugs or alcohol. She replied she had on several occasions.

She was asked to clarify how she knew he was using drugs and she told the court that his eyes would be red or nearly closed. Mr. Martin showed a photo of a chest tattoo to the witness and
asked if she recognized it. She said that it was Mr. Cadenaz-Lopez’s tattoo. The witness was then questioned about what kind of shirt the defendant usually wore and she responded that he usually wore a tank top. A photo was shown to the court of what was identified as Mr. Cadenaz-Lopez in a white tank top, in which his tattoo was partially visible.

Mr. Hasapes started his cross-examination in this countersuit by asking if it was possible for the witness to know if all the tank tops owned by the defendant were the same brand. She testified that she could not know that. Mr. Hasapes asked the witness to clarify how Mr. Cadenaz-Lopez would look after he woke up from being passed out from drug and alcohol usage. She stated that he would have bloodshot eyes and lowered eyelids.

In his redirect, Mr. Martin showed the jury a photo of the calf of a leg, and asked the witness if she could identify the calf. She identified it as Mr. Cadanez-Lopez’s calf. Then a surveillance photo from the robbery was shown to the witness and she was asked if she could also recognize his calf. She replied it was not the defendant’s because it was whiter, as well as hairless. She then was asked if the defendant’s tattoo was visible above the tank top worn by the man in the surveillance photo, and she stated it was not.

Mr. Hasapes in his recross focused on asking the witness about the discrepancy in quality between the photo of the calf known to be the defendant’s and the calf in the surveillance photo. She replied that the surveillance photo was more pixilated, but she still did not believe it was Cadenaz-Lopez’s calf.

During the final redirect of this first witness, Mr. Martin pointed to colors in the photo to see if the witness could identify color change. She stated she could tell different colors in the photograph. When asked if she saw any different colors besides skin on the chest of the man in the surveillance photo, she said she did not. The witness was then dismissed from the courtroom.

The next witness called to the stand lived in the neighborhood. Deputy Public Defender Lisa Lance, the representative for Mr. Hernandez, asked if the witness could confirm if he knew the individual in a photograph. Mr. Hasapes asked what the witness saw, and he testified that he saw a car by his house that had a car cover. He said that he saw a tow truck near the vehicle, but did not see the vehicle being towed. He testified that he saw a car approach the parked car and a man get out of the car. He said one of the men in the car had bushy hair.

In his cross-examination, Mr. Martin asked the witness if he ever identified the suspects via photographs. The witness said he had not. When asked if the witness ever saw a police lineup, the witness said he had not. Ms. Lance then asked the witness if he could identify the suspects he saw near the car, and the witness confirmed that he could not.


Come see the Vanguard Event – “In Search of Gideon” – which highlights some of the key work performed by the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office…

Share:

About The Author

The Vanguard Court Watch operates in Yolo, Sacramento and Sacramento Counties with a mission to monitor and report on court cases. Anyone interested in interning at the Courthouse or volunteering to monitor cases should contact the Vanguard at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org - please email info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org if you find inaccuracies in this report.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for