By Nico Ludwig-Stock
WOODLAND, CA – In closing arguments during a jury trial Wednesday in Yolo County Superior Court, an unhoused man’s mental illness became a central issue in determining whether he “intended” to commit a crime.
Before heading to deliberations, the jury heard expert witness testimony from a mental health professional before listening to closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense.
The accused was charged with three counts of resisting/obstructing a peace officer (two felonies and one misdemeanor), one count of attempted battery on a police officer, and an enhancement from a prior felony conviction.
The accused allegedly threatened officers when they arrived to investigate a reported incident of vandalism, stating things such as “I’m gonna kill you and the entire FBI” while also claiming to be God.
He also allegedly threw a “twig” at an officer. When officers tried to arrest the man following this altercation, he allegedly resisted by fleeing and refusing to lie down, which led to him being tasered by the officers twice.
Deputy Public Defender Erin Dacayanan called to the stand the chief mitigation specialist at Yolo County Public Defender’s office, a forensic social worker who explained more about schizoaffective disorder, which the accused suffers from.
“Schizoaffective disorder is a mental health disorder that involves symptoms of schizophrenia, and symptoms of a mood disorder like depression or mania. It involves hallucinations, delusions, grossly disorganized behavior…elevated mood, high energy levels that are unnatural,” said the expert witness.
Upon further inquiries by DPD Dacayanan, the witness revealed people with this type of disorder have occupational challenges and a difficult time managing relationships, adding disorganized speech is also common, as well as an “elevated sense of self,” and “grandiose delusions.”
An individual’s ability to differentiate between their perceived reality and objective reality is affected, she explained.
DPD Dacayanan inquired, “So if you heard someone say, ‘you’re in the belly of the beast… claimed to be God almighty, and then repeated to make a loud repetitive barking noise while being placed in a police car, would that be consistent with a psychotic disorder you’re aware of?”
While the witness explained she does not have the ability to diagnose the accused, she agreed that “it does sound like psychosis, yes.”
On cross-examination Deputy District Attorney Jesse Richardson focused on the ability of the accused to interpret his surroundings, asking, “Is it fair to say that someone who has delusions and psychosis is still capable of understanding their surroundings, even while believing they are God?”
The witness agreed that it was possible, but that it would vary on a case by case basis.
DDA Richardson closed by commenting that “in order to figure out if they can do that and understand reality around them, we have to look at the things they say.”
Judge Samuel McAdam explained to the jury the two felony counts against the accused are “specific intent” crimes, meaning DDA Richardson is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused “intended” to prevent the officers from performing their duty. As these counts are a question of intent and mental state, the accused’s mental illness is a key issue that would come up in closing arguments.
In his closing argument DDA Richardson argued that the accused threatened the police officers with the intent to deter them from investigating the reported vandalism.
Citing the accused’s own testimony the prior day, DDA Richardson stated “he knew these people were police officers… He might be hearing voices, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t know these are peace officers.”
In regard to Counts 3 and 4 (misdemeanor charges of battery on a police officer and resisting arrest), DDA Richardson pointed to the body cam footage of the police officers, stating, “The action of throwing something at somebody is an assault, and he did this purposefully.
“The defendant was resisting. He was running from officers after being asked to stop. Refusing to get on the ground when he was being asked to… all these actions are the defendant resisting being arrested,” said DDA Richardson.
In his final remarks, DDA Richardson addressed the accused’s unhoused status and mental illness, arguing, “There specifically is an instruction that says you shouldn’t let personal biases interfere,” suggesting the jurors might be sympathetic to the accused’s struggles, but “the law requires you to put that sympathy aside.”
DPD Dacayanan delivered her closing arguments, centering her remarks around intent and the accused’s mental state.
Counts 1 and 2, said DPD Dacayanan, are “specific intent” crimes, which means the jurors need to decide whether “the accused’s schizoaffective disorder was affecting him that day.
“On January 29, all he wants to do is find a dry and quiet place to sleep. He is irritable from his illness, he is hearing voices,” stated DPD Dacayanan.
“In the state that (he) was in at the time, does the accused actually have the goal to threaten the officers to deter an investigation or are these just the rantings of a mentally ill man. His belief that he owns the building, that he’s God almighty, that he can kill the entire FBI… that’s what he was saying. Are these just the ravings of a mentally ill man who is homeless and wants to be left alone?” she asks.
She continued, arguing that even the police officers did not perceive the situation as threatening, noting, “Officer Weis and Sergeant Martin didn’t lose any sleep over this. ‘This didn’t scare me,’ they said. It’s part of their job.”
She posed the question to the jurors, “Is him lashing out really something they can take as a threat of violence or is it just again symptoms of a mental health crisis clashing with a police force that doesn’t have any mental health services on a Sunday?”
Because Counts 3 and 4 were “general intent” crimes, DPD Dacayanan could not use the accused’s mental impairment as a defense.
However, she brought up the question of whether a “small piece of bark merits being tased twice,” and highlighted a discrepancy in witness testimony of the two officers about whether or not the accused was being cooperative during the arrest.
In closing, DPD Dacayanan stated, “Sometimes in criminal court we get confronted with realities about society and community that aren’t always pretty.”
