By Natalia Ruvalcaba
WOODLAND CA – Assistant Public Defender Peter Borruso argued there was insufficient evidence to convict Reuben Michael Kottke of second-degree burglary, but camera footage proves otherwise, the judge here in County Superior Court said. Yolo last week.
DPD Borruso argued that there was insufficient evidence of Kottke’s identity and therefore no convincing information to support his role in the crime.
In contrast, the prosecution disputed this allegation stating, “You heard Detective Cameron testify that the clothing and backpacks of the two individuals captured in the surveillance footage…clearly show that the two individuals were stealing items. in the storage unit.
Judge Daniel Maguire said there is enough evidence, from solar panels to clothing, to identify Kottke as the likely perpetrator.
DPD Borruso filed a PC § 17(b) motion, which asks that a felony charge be reduced to a misdemeanor, noting, “I ask the court to reduce the one and only second degree felony charge.”
DPD Borruso claimed it was unclear how unclear Kottke’s role in the crime was.
Evidence shows the other suspect was the one with the bolt cutters, which DPD Borruso says gives a reasonable interpretation to believe that Kottke did not play as heavy a role as the other individual.
The other individual, as DPD Borruso put it, “so had more responsibility here, for what really happened.”
In addition to downplaying his client’s role and significance in the burglary, DPD Borruso noted that the value of the stolen property was approximately $300.
However, even though his client has already committed a crime, DPD Borruso reminded the court that he was only 27 and that the burglary did not involve confrontation or violence.
In response to DPD Borruso’s request, the prosecution noted the defendant’s multiple offenses, dating back to 2018.
The DDA also considered the defendant’s conduct to be aggressive, according to police, although DPD Borruso noted that the value of the items stolen was only $300.
DDA Coe reported that video evidence showed the suspects breaking into the storage unit and stealing as much as they could. As a result, she noted, “I don’t think the amount of damages or the cost of each item is relevant to making this 17(b) claim. This is criminal conduct.