By Ryan Oh
A San Francisco resident, Elmo Vincent Daniels, found himself facing the potential charge of domestic violence and an attempt to commit homicide, after allegedly engaging in domestic violence against a woman.
At the preliminary hearing held in Department 9 on October 24, 2019, the Assistant District Attorney and the opposing counsel had an opportunity to hear testimonies from two police officers. The first witness, San Francisco Police Officer Paul Chavrien Rubio, recalled that he responded to a 911 call around 5 AM on August 24, 2019. Officer Rubio testified that he saw the defendant at the back of an ambulance when he arrived at the scene. The officer further stated that he was sent as a backup to other officers, who responded initially and cleared out the situation before Rubio’s arrival.
Responding to the ADA regarding the alleged victim, Officer Rubio stated that he had a chance to speak with the woman, who was initially uncooperative in the investigation. The alleged victim, the officer reported, appeared to be in substantial pain and fear.
The woman then took the stand. She testified that the defendant broke into her house right before she made a call to 911 for police assistance. Subsequently, she was allegedly strangled by the defendant, ultimately causing her to lose consciousness for a short period of time. He also bit her left finger when she attempted to escape, while he ran and grabbed a knife as soon as he heard a 
noise, what he believed to be a police vehicle.
Following the People’s questions, the defense asked Officer Rubio whether there is a possibility that the victim’s injuries came from other people than the defendant. The officer mentioned that he was not sure at the moment. Then the counsel asked the officer a more acute question of whether the victim’s bruises on her face at that time were believed to be “new” or “old” – implying a possibility of an assailant other than Mr. Daniels – according to his observation. The officer stated that he was not sure of how to determine whether bruises were new or old. The officer then added that the woman reported having difficulty in breathing and talking due to Mr. Daniel’s alleged strangulation. The testimony seemed to lack some important details, as Officer Rubio was not the one who initially responded to the situation.
To fill in the needed details, the People called a second officer, who identified himself as Officer Dennis Buctler of the San Francisco Police Department. He was one of the two officers who initially responded to the scene. When the officer arrived, he observed the victim standing outside at her balcony, crying and screaming. Officer Buctler mentioned that he and his partner made entry through force and went up to the woman’s place within a minute and found the defendant with a black kitchen knife in his hand. The officers then ordered Mr. Daniels to drop the knife, whicc the defendant did, and they arrested him soon thereafter.
In response to Officer Rubio’s first testimony to this preliminary hearing, Officer Buctler confirmed that the first testimony accurately described what the victim had relayed to the police investigation held on the same day of the incident. More importantly, Officer Buctler added that there was no blood on the knife, while there existed blood on the balcony that was never tested to identify its owner. In other words, the officer’s testimony implied that there could be a possibility that the blood was also from the defendant.
In the closing statement, the defense counsel pointed to the knife without blood and a possibility of Mr. Daniels being hit by the victim, as the owner of the blood at the scene – the balcony of the victim’s house – remains to be unidentified. Thus, the counsel concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation of domestic violence and attempted homicide against Mr. Daniels. The ADA, on the other hand, urged that there is enough evidence like the knife and multiple bruises on the victim’s head, a part of the body that is very fragile, to suggest the defendant’s act of domestic violence and intention of homicide. Judge Rita F. Lin ordered the defendant held to answer for the charges.
