The defense was trying to to make a case for the charge to just be a mis demeanor. However in the re direct all of the defenses final arguments seemed to be answered and shut down by the state attorney. The Identification was from the video surveillance, the court has jurisdiction through triable cause. The defendant still took the card and did not say anything about it being missing. Within an hour of taking the card it had been used and charged multiple …show more content…
She previously had been charged with multiple possession of drug charges. As well as in 2008 she had a burglary charge that resulted in a strike. The defendants attorney tried to ask for a motion to a 17-B which was ultimately denied by the court for the reason that it was a possession of the credit card with intent of fraud. The evidence being shown on the video cameras from Pechanga of the defendant taking the card. The defendant had been charged prior with burglary meaning she possessed the skills to do something a long these lines again. On a side note however the burglary had happened eight years ago which in my opinion would have been enough time for her not to be judged by it anymore. Since she had no offenses like it recently. The last reason was because of the strike she got and the probation that she was on it was not fitting for it to just be a mis demeanor. The judge did add that the defendant might want to look at the case as a possible drug case seeing a she has had a long history with drugs. Also the judge did offer a drug rehab program that would help the defendant potentially get on a better track, and it would be offered to her for free. The final rule from the judge was their was enough evidence to charge her with possession of another’s credit card with the intent of fraud. The trial for this case was scheduled for November