Reporting Officer Testifies in Domestic Violence Trial – Defense Says Redness Does Not Necessarily Mean Injury.

By Tiffany Thai

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Christine Van Aken Thursday reconvened a trial where the accused, Gennadiy Voronkov, is being charged with felony inflicting physical harm on a dependent adult.

Deputy Public Defender Semuteh Freeman represented Voronkov, who is specifically charged with California Penal Code section 368 (b)(1): “Any person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon.”

Assistant District Attorney Jonah Ross called SFPD Officer Kevin Danielie, the reporting officer in the incident, which happened June 18, 2020. Officer Danielie testified about what he observed regarding the accused and the alleged female victim.

Officer Danielie stated that he observed the female victim with a visible laceration on her neck when he first arrived, and noted the accused was slurring his words at the time of the incident, which was audible during the video footage shown to the jury.

The accused slurred his words when speaking to Officer Danielie, and stated that “they throw my booze” while talking to the officer.

Officer Danielie said “I saw visible redness to her neck,” and recalled the television was on and facing downward with the screen cracked, commenting that the volume was “very loud.”

Officer Danielie said the accused was arrested after investigating that night’s incident.

Following this, PD Freeman asked the officer if “redness (is) indicative of someone having an injury?” Danielie said it would vary.

PD Freeman established that redness is not always indicative of injury, as a pale individual could be easily visibly flushed if they are drinking, suggesting people may appear red, but that does not mean they are injured.

PD Freeman suggested the loud TV may not be a result of the accused’s action, and stated “it was after that (Officer Danielie picking up the remote), the music began to play.”

PD Freeman then moved on to the photos of the victim and the lacerations on her body. PD Freeman asked if Officer Danielie took better photos—the photos used in court were stills from body-worn footage.

The officer said he did take cell phone photos as the body-worn camera does not provide high-definition quality, but PD Freeman noted in her cross-examination that these higher-quality photos have not been submitted by ADA Ross to be used as evidence to the court.

Judge Van Aken asked the jury if they had questions for Officer Danielie before he was dismissed.

First, the jury asked whether the digital body-worn video was a more accurate depiction of what was shown, referencing the marks. Officer Danielie stated that the video was not as good of a depiction as the human eye.

The other question for Officer Danielie was whether he observed any other disturbances other than the TV. Officer Danielie said he did observe a broken door frame, and a photo of it was admitted into evidence.

Officer Danielie’s testimony concluded all testimonies of the People’s witnesses.

Friday, PD Freeman is expected to bring in witnesses to testify on behalf of the accused.

About The Author

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
Sign up for