The case against police officer Jeronimo Yanez in last year's fatal shooting of Philando Castile should proceed to trial because evidence supports the criminal charges, and because defense attorneys misconstrued case law in arguing for its dismissal, prosecutors said in a memorandum filed Wednesday.
Questions about Castile's alleged marijuana use and refusal to obey police commands raised in a defense motion to dismiss the case can only be resolved with a jury trial, the memo said.
Ramsey County District Court Judge William H. Leary III is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the matter Feb. 15, and is expected to issue a decision that same day.
"The State has established sufficient probable cause for the objective aspect of culpable negligence because Defendant's conduct during the traffic stop culminating in Castile's death was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable officer would have observed," Jeffrey Paulsen, a federal prosecutor working on the case as a special assistant Ramsey County attorney, wrote in the prosecution's memo. "Any potential negligence by Castile is a question of fact for the jury. Even if Castile was negligent, his negligence was not as a matter of law an intervening, superseding cause of his death."
Yanez, 28, was charged Nov. 16 in Ramsey County with second-degree manslaughter and two felony counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm in the fatal shooting of Castile, 32, during a July 6 traffic stop in Falcon Heights. Yanez, a St. Anthony police officer, did not appear in court at a scheduling conference Wednesday morning, which is not unusual for such matters.
Yanez's attorneys filed a motion Dec. 14 to dismiss the case, arguing that Castile was negligent in his own death because he had created "unreasonable risk." Autopsy results indicated that Castile had high levels of THC in his blood, the chemical responsible for marijuana's psychological effects, and was "stoned" the day he was killed, the defense said.
"The status of being stoned (in an acute and chronic sense) explains why Mr. Castile, 1) did not follow the repeated directions of Officer Yanez; 2) stared straight ahead and avoided eye-contact; 3) never mentioned that he had a carry permit, but instead said he had a gun; and 4) did not show his hands," the defense motion said.
The prosecution argued that evidence does not show that Castile intended to harm Yanez, and that instead, he followed the officer's orders. In addition, they said in their memo, Yanez was "unreasonable" in his belief that Castile matched an armed robbery suspect when he stopped Castile for an apparent brake light problem.