Domestic Violence and Vandalism: NOT GUILTY

Our client, a 19‑year‑old SDSU student on a student visa from Brazil, was charged with domestic battery (Penal Code § 243(e)(1)), inflicting a traumatic condition (Penal Code § 273.5(a)), and vandalism (Penal Code § 594). A conviction would have meant jail time, a year‑long domestic violence class, and immediate deportation. After a seven‑day jury trial, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all charges in just fifteen minutes.

The case arose from an altercation with her 27‑year‑old boyfriend after a night of drinking. Our client weighed only 110 pounds and had a documented history of being verbally and physically abused by the alleged victim. That night, an argument began over his cigarette smoking. The client decided to leave the apartment and began gathering her belongings. In the process, she threw her computer to the ground, breaking the screen. During the argument, the boyfriend grabbed her phone and FaceTimed her ex‑boyfriend. He then witnessed, live, the client being held on the ground as she struggled to get free. During the struggle, a large mirror fell and shattered. The client broke free and asked security to call 911 because her boyfriend was preventing her from leaving with her belongings. Alarmed by what he saw, the ex‑boyfriend drove to the apartment complex.

When police arrived, they spoke only to the boyfriend and ignored the client and the eyewitness. Security guards said the client had been screaming and angry, and the boyfriend had a small scratch on his neck. The lead officer spoke to the boyfriend for ten minutes, never interviewed the client, never collected her injuries, and never spoke to the ex‑boyfriend who had witnessed the struggle via FaceTime. Once the police decided to arrest her, the boyfriend even tried to stop the arrest, but his request was ignored.

The case proceeded in San Diego Superior Court, and the District Attorney initially offered 90 days in custody, probation, and a year‑long domestic violence class. Any conviction would have led to immediate deportation to Brazil. We immediately began investigating the case and documented prior acts of domestic abuse by the alleged victim. Despite this evidence, the prosecution refused to dismiss.

Before trial, we filed multiple motions in limine that gutted the prosecution’s case. The first victory came when the judge excluded the alleged victim’s statements to police under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), because our client had the right to confront and cross‑examine him. This prevented the prosecutor from using body‑worn camera footage of the boyfriend describing his version of events.