Last hours to vote for the Best of Sonoma County finalists! Don't miss out!

Charges against Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo may become clear Friday

  • Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo at his first Board of Supervisors meeting since his July arrest on suspicion of burglary and prowling on Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013 in Santa Rosa. (KENT PORTER/ PD)

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo steps from the boardroom to the courtroom Friday to face possible criminal charges and potentially a further unraveling of his political career in the wake of his arrest in July outside a Santa Rosa woman's home in just his socks and underwear.

Carrillo, 32, who has been free on bail and says he has spent much of the intervening weeks in an alcohol rehabilitation center, initially was held by police on suspicion of prowling and burglary.

A special prosecutor for the state Attorney General's Office has since been reviewing the facts of the case and may bring formal charges Friday. A felony burglary conviction would result in Carrillo being removed from office.

Whether felony charges will come is unclear. At the time of Carrillo's arrest, police said his intent appeared to be to commit some type of sexual assault but offered no further explanation.

Legal experts said that assertion seems odd in light of state statutes that set a higher standard of proof for certain allegations. In order to win a conviction on felony burglary, prosecutors must show a person entered a dwelling with the intent to steal or commit a specific felony, such as rape. Because sexual assault is an umbrella term that includes misdemeanors, it doesn't necessarily support a felony burglary charge.

“To prove a burglary, they can't just say it looked like he was up to no good with a sexual motivation,” said Greg Jacobs, a retired Sonoma County assistant district attorney. “They have to say what it is. They can't leave it open.”

Even if prosecutors allege a specific sex crime, it will be hard to convince a jury that Carrillo was planning to do it, short of an admission, witness statements or a pattern of identical behavior. The possibility that Carrillo was intoxicated at the time further clouds the issue of intent because he may not have been thinking clearly.

Although some may point to his inappropriate dress as proof that he was seeking sex, that could be more a sign of confused thinking caused by alcohol, some legal observers say.

© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View