By Susana Jurado
SACRAMENTO – Bryant Dimitri Clark concocted a long-winded tale that included Yum Yum Donuts, and buying a car from a guy named “Midnight.”
But Judge Allen H. Summer in Sacramento County Superior Court didn’t buy it, and Clark now faces trial, starting in September.
Monday at his preliminary hearing on four felony counts, of residential burglary, driving a stolen vehicle, and evading police last May 1, Clark pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations. No offer had been made by Deputy District Attorney Mulcahy, who bluntly said it was a “25 to life” case.
Clark’s Assistant Public Defender Dina Stone motioned to dismiss this case.
According to the record, about 3:30 a.m. on May 1, a family of three was asleep in Sacramento when one victim got up in the middle of the night for a drink. As he walked to his kitchen he discovered that the front door of his house was wide open and found his 2018 Subaru Forester nowhere in sight.
Before the victim went on his late night stroll, Clark allegedly took down the screen of an unlocked kitchen window, stepped onto the sink, and stole purses, backpacks, laptops and car keys on his way out the door, and then drove away in the family’s car.
Sacramento Police Officer Arruda testified that he took a formal statement from the victim, who said the burglar must have entered through “a window in the kitchen that was unlocked and the person removed the screen and crawled through.”
A few hours later, Sheriff’s Deputy Eric Frizzie began a pursuit close behind the Target near Fruitridge Blvd. The stolen Subaru started to pick up speed as it ran a red light turning left onto 79th 
Street, and left Frizzie behind.
Clark then, according to testimony, ran from the stolen car, and trespassed into a home in the area, popping open the screen of an unlocked bedroom window and sneaking in. The homeowner and alleged victim asked the trespasser to leave his home while Clark argued that the cops were looking for him, begging the victim not to call the authorities. The victim again told Clark to leave the house or he would call the cops, so Clark ran out and jumped over the fence.
He was later found in a doghouse by the authorities.
When Clark was questioned by Detective Chris Bernacchi, he responded that he actually bought the stolen car for $1,140 and an ounce of weed from an associate called “Midnight.” He had made that transaction earlier that morning at a Yum Yum Donuts parking lot in Sacramento.
He did not have the ownership title at the time of the arrest because he was going to pay “Midnight” $200 more dollars for it later on that day. However, when Detective Bret Kitley saw the surveillance footage of the Yum Yum Donuts on that date, there were no cars or people that would match the description of the stolen Subaru, Clark, or any person named “Midnight.”
Officer Arruda testified, “The Subaru was parked before it was stolen and the location where it was last seen was in the front of the house. No one had permission to drive her car or enter her house especially since her front door was locked.”
Deputy Frizzie said he dropped out of the pursuit because “it was a residential neighborhood; I did not feel safe to drive it that high of a speed to be directly behind the vehicle.”
But, he could not account for the exact time he turned on his lights and sirens during the pursuit, leading the public defender to question him on the legitimacy of his story as the reports he submitted and the facts he was stating were inconsistent with each other.
Sheriff Department Deputy Edwin Yip from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. He interviewed the victim whose home Clark allegedly hid in briefly after the car chase.
“Even though the victim did not physically see the subject remove the screen it was more of an assumption on his part because the screen was there and then the only way to have gained access to the residence was to pop the screen off and climb through the window,” said Yip.
Detective Chris Bernacchi from the Rooney Police Sub-Station testified that that Clark admitted to fleeing the police on that date but did not admit to committing the burglary.
Clark, said Bernacchi, said he got the car at a Yum Yum Donuts parking lot, and that the stolen items were already in the vehicle and that he confused the backpack full of laptops with his own backpack, and noted that it felt heavier than usual when he fled. He later abandoned the backpack in the backyard of the residence he trespassed on.
District Attorney Kelly Mulcahy questioned Detective Bernacchi on the issue of fleeing from the police: “Did he tell you why he ran from the police?”
Detective Bernacchi answered, “I believe he said, ‘I do not want to go back to jail.’”
Detective Bret Kitley, working for the Sacramento Police Department, confirmed security footage which showed no one in the Yum Yum Donuts’ parking lot when and as the defendant claimed.
“The suspect’s statement was that he had purchased the vehicle in the parking lot of that business the prior night, so the majority of my visit was to review the security cameras to either confirm or deny that statement. I never saw any vehicle matching a Subaru or anyone with a Subaru during that time,” he said.
Public Defender Stone argued that the footage does not show the entirety of the parking lot, making the case that the transaction could have still taken place behind the part of the footage that is obstructed by trees.
“His story is ridiculous without proof; but we have proof that it was a complete fabrication and lie. Yum Yum has a very sophisticated computer system which showed that no one, no car was ever there at that time,” argued District Attorney Mulcahy, adding, “A short pursuit is a pursuit and the defendant admitted he ran from the police, he was speeding, he ran a red light and a stop sign. It’s irrelevant whether there was anyone else on the road.”
“There’s no evidence to indicate that Mr. Clark was in the residence. He was not seen. There was no testimony. No obvious sign of it being stolen like a punched ignition was noticed. There was nobody else on the road.” argued Public Defender Stone.
“There’s no indication that Mr. Clark had gone through the vehicle and found the stolen items. He believed he purchased it legally, giving no indication that he knew the items were stolen. I do not believe that there has been enough evidence presented that Mr. Clark committed the felonies that are accused. Therefore, he should not be held to answer,” Stone said.
Judge Allen H. Summer ruled that there is sufficient evidence to hold Clark accountable for all charges and set the trial date on September 10, 2020.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
