By Simran Chahal
SACRAMENTO, CA – In a Sacramento County Superior Court preliminary hearing Wednesday, Judge Delbert Oros ruled that a common, everyday kitchen knife is included in the “dirk or dagger” definition and, despite the lack of a specific statement of threats to the victim, the intent of harm was present.
Earlier this year, Daniel Farajifar allegedly broke into the house of his ex-girlfriend, stole and concealed a kitchen knife in his waistband, and threatened to kill her.
Deputy Matthew Lorigan said when he arrived on the scene, he observed a male “run out from the side of the dispatched address, and crouch down near a parked car.
The deputy said that “it almost looked like he was trying to avoid being seen by us.” At this point, Lorigan stated his partner started to give directives which Farajifar did not initially cooperate with.
Lorigan said he observed Farajifar reach into his waistband, but he did not see what he discarded. However, Lorigan did state that his partner reported it was a fixed blade kitchen knife.
Lorigan contacted the alleged victim who stated she dated Farajifar but broke up a day before the incident. The victim said she heard Farajifar “banging on her front door” and wanting to speak with the victim. The victim’s friend was at home with her, and the friend told Farajifar that the victim was not home.
In response, Lorigan stated the victim told him “the defendant went to the north side of the resident and tried to come in through the backdoor.” To prevent the defendant from entering, the victim jammed a knife into the backdoor to prevent it from opening.
After a while, the victim said she observed Farajifar through the window, and “the defendant was holding a black AK style rifle” to his chest. The deputy was informed by the victim that the defendant “threatened to kill her with the gun.” Lorigan noted that the statement included the reports, including “he was gonna kill me” were a summary of a situation, not the exact words.
At this point, Lorigan explained that the victim said she saw the defendant proceed to the front of the home where he broke the front window. He was absent for 10 minutes, and then proceeded to break the bedroom window.
Lorigan stated he was told Farajifar entered the home through the bedroom window, “grabbed a knife and tucked it into his waistband,” grabbed the victim’s wrist and threatened to kill her.
Deputy Alexander Spencer explained he was dispatched to the residence to set up the parameter around the scene and look for the suspect’s vehicle and that he observed, “in plain view, a black AK 47 lying on top of some furniture.”
The deputy was able to retrieve the weapon and performed a record check which indicated the gun was registered to Farajifar. Spencer also noted he was not able to determine whether the weapon met the definition of an assault weapon.
After the testimonies, DDA Kitty Tetrault stated there were two exhibits she wanted to highlight from the witness testimony: the list of firearms registered to the defendant and registration of the AK 47. Defense attorney Charles Dresow showed no objections.
Dresow argued that “the ‘dirk or dagger’ allegation does not appear to be a sufficient basis of evidence.” He stated that “the descriptions of the item were as a ‘kitchen knife’ and there was not any real specificity to length, size, or any other detail.”
Dresow addressed “intent to harm,” arguing “there was an insufficient basis of evidence to support” the charge.
He stated that “the officer’s report was a summary…, but he could not remember the particular words.” Thus, he concluded, “the court is left unable to evaluate whether the specific statement falls within the charge.”
Judge Oros started with the ‘dirk or dagger’ allegation as he stated “the statute does not contain any specific reference to the length of the blade or style of the knife,” and noted “the mere fact that it was a knife would qualify under the statute.”
He added the statute requires the knife to be concealed, and the testimony demonstrated the knife was concealed in the waistband of Farajifar’s pants, at some point. Judge Oros said he was “satisfied that there is more than sufficient evidence on the record to issue the holding order” on that charge.
As for the charge regarding criminal threats with the intent to harm, the judge stated “the requirement is that the threat be so clear, immediate, unconditional, and specific that as it is communicated to the victim,” and the threat contain “the serious intention and the immediate prospect that the threat would be carried out.”
In this case, the judge argued that there was the presence of a gun with an accompanied threat to kill, noting, “The specificity regarding the threat is not required. The content…of threat to kill to the victim is sufficient and the presence of the weapon would clearly satisfy the requirement.”
Judge Oros concluded that he had found sufficient cause to believe that Farajifar is guilty thereof and, therefore, ordered him held to answer on those charges.
After the judge’s concluding point, Farajifar pleaded not guilty on all charges.
The jury trial is set for Jan. 18.