Close Proximity of Two Residences Causes Complications in Child Abuse Case

By Eric J. Trochez

WOODLAND – A sex offender was given a restraining order of 100 yards from his victim. However, he lives only about 50 yards away from the victim’s house.

A complaint was filed on October 29, 2019, against Burnam Lowell, Jr., for sexually abusing a minor. He accepted a deal, dropping three of his five charges, and pleading “no contest” to a misdemeanor of molestation of a child and a felony charge of sexually abusing and endangering a child.

On Wednesday, Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg was responsible for Lowell’s sentencing.

Steven Sabbadini, the defense attorney representing Lowell, explained that a child abuse program is typically the appropriate punishment for this felony charge. However, given the nature of what is taught in those classes, he believes that Lowell shouldn’t have to attend them. The classes deal with anger and physical abuse, neither of which are applicable to the defendant, according to Sabbadini.

Sabbadini finds the sex offender counseling course, attendance of once a week, along with a restraining order from the victim’s mother’s residence of 100 yards should be sufficient to deal with the “root causes” of the problem.

“We have no objection to [CPO- Restraining Order], but the mother of the victim has a residence about 50 yards away from the defendant’s residence,” notes Sabbadini.

“We would request …,” he continued. “Maybe some additional language, that it is a 100 yard stay away except the two residences.”

Sabbadini continued to explain how the near proximity of residences hasn’t caused any issues for the past couple of years since the incident and that the mother and the victim have moved to Davis, so the additional changes to the CPO are reasonable. The final request Sabbadini made is a seal on the psychological evaluation the defendant has, stating the public “has no need to know about this.”

Judge Rosenberg then asked for Deputy District Attorney Sara Abrate to share her thoughts.

Abrate believes that both the sex offender counseling and child abuse counseling are appropriate for this case, given the age of the victim, adding, “As for the (restraining order), I understand the issue. No one is asking him to move out of his residence… it still needs to be 100 yards. If he’s [Lowell] outside the residence and she’s [victim/mother of victim] outside, he needs to go inside.”

Abrate says the defendant has a responsibility to “go away” if he sees the victim, but he is not being ordered to move from his residence.

Sabbadini raised the concern of another case, where a person who had a restraining order lived within a 100 yards, and was given a VOP (violation of probation). “I don’t want my client to be in that situation,” expressed Sabbadini. Otherwise he agreed with Abrate about the defendant’s obligation of going away.

Judge Rosenberg understood these discrepancies and called on Probation Officer Stephen Svetich’s input on the matter.

“It’s a tough call,” Svetich said, noting that the wording to describe the exact situation that raises concern from both the defense and DA would be difficult. The number of scenarios of that occurring is likely. Svetich “doesn’t know the answer” to how this situation should be resolved in writing.

With all this, Judge Rosenberg issued the order: First, the psychological evaluation will be sealed from public view. Second, the defendant will be ordered to attend sex offender counseling and afterwards he will complete the child abuse counseling program. Doing both simultaneously “would be too much” according to the judge.

Third, he issued a protective order with no-contact conditions. He must stay 100 yards away from the victim and their family. The 50-yard distance between the residences won’t be an issue. The judge honors the plea, placing Lowell under probation for four years and placing him under the supervision of a probation officer.

Judge Rosenberg sentenced Lowell to 180 days in county jail, and he must report to jail to serve his time by Dec. 8 at 9 a.m.


To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

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