Court: Santa Cruz to dismiss homicide charge against San Jose man for 2018 slaying

Court: Santa Cruz to dismiss homicide charge against San Jose man for 2018 slaying

SANTA CRUZ — A Santa Cruz judge erred in not ensuring individual Spanish-language interpreters were provided for each of three co-defendants during their 2020 homicide preliminary hearing, a San Jose-based state appellate court panel ruled last week.

Related Articles

Crime and Public Safety |


5-month-old baby dies after being found not breathing in Stanford campus apartment

Crime and Public Safety |


Juveniles reportedly throwing hot dogs, rocks at passing cars in Los Gatos

Crime and Public Safety |


Bay Area math teacher faces child sex crime charges

Crime and Public Safety |


Body possibly belonging to San Jose teen pulled from San Joaquin River

Crime and Public Safety |


Manslaughter arrest after alleged DUI driver crashes into San Jose house, killing passenger

The 6th Appellate District Court of Appeal took up the issue based on a January 2023 petition by attorneys on behalf of Milton Arias Molina, 28. Heather Rogers and Athena Reis challenged Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick’s ruling two months earlier to not dismiss Molina’s case based on the lack of sufficient interpreters during Molina’s earlier preliminary hearing.

After a preliminary hearing that stretched some 13 sessions from March 2020 through June 2021, Judge Timothy Volkmann found that Molina and co-defendants Jose Leonard Alfaro Juarez and Elmer Ernesto Mendez Lopez would stand to face charges of special circumstances murder, conspiracy to commit murder and street terrorism.

“On the first day of the preliminary examination, Molina’s counsel objected that the hearing would be conducted with a single interpreter for all three defendants in violation of the California Constitution,” the ruling states. “Counsel for Molina’s codefendants joined in the objection. The prosecutor also voiced her concerns about the lack of interpreters, stating she did not want to ‘go through a preliminary hearing just to have to do it again.’”

Related Articles

Crime and Public Safety |


5-month-old baby dies after being found not breathing in Stanford campus apartment

Crime and Public Safety |


Juveniles reportedly throwing hot dogs, rocks at passing cars in Los Gatos

Crime and Public Safety |


Bay Area math teacher faces child sex crime charges

Crime and Public Safety |


Body possibly belonging to San Jose teen pulled from San Joaquin River

Crime and Public Safety |


Manslaughter arrest after alleged DUI driver crashes into San Jose house, killing passenger

The hearings were held against the backdrop of the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, when court operations were significantly scaled back. In addition to requiring interpreters for both the defendants and witnesses, other courtrooms held sessions requiring interpreter support, according to a summary of events in the ruling. The judge offered to halt proceedings to clarify events for any of the defendants, as needed, and to allow interpreted confidential conversations between attorneys and their clients, as needed.

Molina, formerly of San Jose, was arrested in October 2018 as an alleged co-conspirator in the death of 41-year-old Bernardo Rodas of Santa Cruz. Three days after his family reported him missing, Rodas’ body, stabbed in the torso and shot once in the head, was found 75 feet from a remote portion of upper North Rodeo Gulch on Oct. 13.

Molina is accused of lying in wait while released on bail on a separate case and killing Rodas for the benefit of a street gang.

Per the appellate panel’s ruling Friday, the Santa Cruz court is ordered to vacate its order denying Molina’s motion to dismiss and enter a new order granting that motion. Molina’s lack of a personal interpreter “precluded his ability to meaningfully participate in a criminal proceeding and limited his ability to challenge the evidence presented against him.” The error “reasonably might have affected the outcome,” the panel wrote in its ruling.

The order does not bar the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office from refiling the charges and conducting a new preliminary examination. Attorneys involved in the case could not be immediately reached Tuesday.