Baptist Pastor Melvin Brown: Who Would Jesus Beat in the Face and Chase Around with a Gun?
More than a few Conservative Babylonians stand out in our minds as people we’d never want to tick off, judging by their off-the-hook overreactions to incidents the rest of us would forget about five minutes after they happened, among them: Tom Hackbarth, who followed a female acquaintance to a Planned Parenthood parking lot with a pistol strapped to his hip, because she turned him down for a date; Chip Pickering, who, when he’s not (allegedly) messing with somebody else’s woman, is (allegedly) picking fights with his son’s soccer coach; and Cary Allred, who gets mean when he’s drunk. (Don’t even ask us what we think of David Hedrick — at least not until after his trial is over.)
Only today, we discovered one Melvin Brown, pastor of Second Community Baptist Church in Venice, California, who—
Ah, heck, sometimes we just can’t tell the story even half as well as official court documents (which can sometimes be quite engrossing). So here, courtesy of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, is the story (minus the boring legalese) of Melvin Brown — whose appeal “of various assault charges” was denied, and his conviction upheld December 22, 2010:
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELVIN BROWN, Defendant and Appellant . . .
A jury convicted defendant Melvin Brown, a pastor at the Second Community Baptist Church, of various assault charges stemming from two separate and unrelated incidents. On appeal, defendant argues the separate sets of charges against him should not have been consolidated for trial. In addition, he claims the prosecutor committed misconduct when, during her closing argument, she referred to an absent witness’s testimony. As explained below, we affirm.
Background 1. Dialysis Center Incident, October 17, 2008
On the evening of October 17, 2008, Herbert Cerna parked his van (”the van”) in the parking lot of a Compton dialysis center and went inside to pick up a patient. Defendant was at the same dialysis center because his mother received treatment there that evening. Mr. Cerna’s van was blocking some cars, but it was not blocking defendant’s car. Mr. Cerna had seen defendant at the center many times before. That evening, Mr. Cerna saw defendant in the parking lot talking to other drivers and holding a metal wheelchair footrest. An employee at the dialysis center, Mercedes Alba, also saw defendant holding the metal footrest.
Soon after Mr. Cerna had entered the dialysis center, defendant came inside, looking and acting furious and still holding the metal footrest. Mr. Cerna went outside.
Ms. Alba heard defendant speak in a raised voice, laced with profanities. He asked who drove the van, which he claimed was blocking his car.
Defendant followed Mr. Cerna outside and asked him in a “strong,” loud voice if the van was his. When Mr. Cerna said it was his van, defendant said “Why are you blocking me” and started hitting Mr. Cerna. As he hit Mr. Cerna on the back, neck and head with his fist, defendant said “Why you
f—k me, why youf—k me.” Defendant hit Mr. Cerna hard about six times. From inside the dialysis center, Ms. Alba saw defendant shove Mr. Cerna. She went outside, saw defendant hitting Mr. Cerna, and called 911. Although Mr. Cerna tried to get away, defendant followed Mr. Cerna, grabbed his shirt and punched him hard with his right fist five or six times in the back, all the while holding the metal footrest in his left hand. Mr. Cerna stumbled and tried again to get away from defendant. Defendant grabbed Mr. Cerna’s shirt and again started striking him, this time in the neck and back with his fist. Again, Mr. Cerna tried to get away and this time was able to call 911 on his cell phone.1 But defendant grabbed Mr. Cerna again and held him around the neck in a choke hold, hit him in the back, and tried to grab his phone, which fell. Defendant released Mr. Cerna, but then grabbed him again and tried to push him against some cars.Defendant then hit Mr. Cerna with the metal footrest in the face, just below his nose. Mr. Cerna asked defendant to stop and told him he would move the van. Ms. Alba and her boss were telling defendant to let Mr. Cerna go so he could move his van. Defendant ran to his car and drove away — without Mr. Cerna having to move the van. Mr. Cerna’s face was bleeding from the blow with the footrest. Ms. Alba gave him some gauze for the bleeding. Ms. Alba did not see Mr. Cerna hit or act aggressively toward defendant.
When sheriff deputies arrived at the scene, Mr. Cerna declined their offer of medical assistance because he did not think it was necessary. But, about 30 minutes later, Mr. Cerna’s entire body was in pain so he went to his doctor. Six months after the incident, Mr. Cerna was still going to physical therapy three times a week and taking pain medication. At trial, Mr. Cerna showed the jury the scar on his face where defendant struck him with the metal footrest.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. He denied hitting Mr. Cerna with the footrest and admitted only to using his hands to hit Mr. Cerna in the face and possibly the head two or three times. Defendant explained he was trying to figure out whose van was blocking his car because he had an emergency and needed to be with his mother, who was leaving the dialysis center with defendant’s sister. Although defendant was nervous and becoming increasingly panicked because he thought his mother was going to die and he needed to get out of the parking lot, he did not yell at anyone and politely asked whose van was blocking his car.
According to defendant, Mr. Cerna was being uncooperative. When defendant finally figured out the van belonged to Mr. Cerna, he pushed Mr. Cerna toward the van a few times, but continued to speak politely to him. Eventually, when Mr. Cerna would not get into his van and move it, defendant hit him twice in the face and possibly once on the head. Defendant was not holding the metal footrest at that point. Defendant saw a car leave the parking lot, which enabled him to inch his car around the van and drive away.
2. Motorcycle Incident, January 23, 2009
In mid-January 2009, Benjamin Munnerlyn put a down payment on a motorcycle he was considering buying from defendant. Mr. Munnerlyn took the motorcycle, but forgot to get the keys. When defendant refused to give Mr. Munnerlyn the keys until he paid the full price, Mr. Munnerlyn decided not to buy the motorcycle. He had wanted a mechanic to evaluate the motorcycle, but the mechanic could not complete a full evaluation without the keys. Munnerlyn left a message for defendant telling him he would be returning the motorcycle in the morning on January 23, 2009.
Mid-morning on the 23rd, Mr. Munnerlyn, his girlfriend Yamilett Huerta, and Bruce McKinsie brought the motorcycle to defendant at his mother’s house, where defendant was staying in his motor home. Mr. Munnerlyn used a truck to tow the motorcycle on a trailer to defendant’s home. Mr. Munnerlyn double-parked the truck in the street by defendant’s house. Ms. Huerta stayed in the truck, which she did not think was double-parked.
As Mr. Munnerlyn and Mr. McKinsie were taking the motorcycle from the trailer, defendant came over and asked where the “brain” of the motorcycle was. (The “brain” is the computer chip that runs the motorcycle’s electronics.) Mr. Munnerlyn’s mechanic had told him the bike did not have a brain and Mr. Munnerlyn told defendant “You know, it didn’t have a brain.”
Mr. Munnerlyn and Mr. McKinsie pushed the motorcycle up the driveway toward defendant’s motor home. As they were trying to stand the motorcycle upright next to the motor home, defendant came behind them, pulled out a black revolver from the back of his pants, pointed it at Mr. Munnerlyn and demanded money for the motorcycle. Mr. Munnerlyn told Ms. Huerta to call 911 and took his phone out to call 911 also. At that point, defendant said, “If you call 911, I will put a cap in your ass.” Defendant then pointed the gun at Mr. Munnerlyn’s head. Mr. McKinsie said, “I didn’t wake up for all this,” which prompted defendant to turn toward Mr. McKinsie and to point the gun at him.
Sitting in the truck, Ms. Huerta saw a tall, light-skinned and seemingly angry African-American talking to Mr. Munnerlyn and Mr. McKinsie. She saw the man pull a gun from the back of his pants, point it at Mr. Munnerlyn and then at Mr. McKinsie. She saw both men put their hands up and heard Mr. McKinsie say “We’re not here to fight, brother.” Neither Mr. Munnerlyn nor Mr. McKinsie had a gun and neither threatened to harm defendant before he pulled out his gun. At trial, Ms. Huerta pointed to defendant as the man she saw, but then testified she did not remember him.
As Mr. Munnerlyn began to walk away, defendant followed him, yelling about an earlier deal they had involving a different motorcycle. Defendant had become extremely agitated. Mr. Munnerlyn and Mr. McKinsie returned to the truck, where Mr. Munnerlyn called 911. Ms. Huerta said the man was still pointing the gun at the men when they got in the truck, at which point she was out of the truck looking for her phone to call 911. As Mr. Munnerlyn watched defendant walk to his own car, he no longer saw the gun in defendant’s hand. Mr. Munnerlyn was still talking to the 911 operator when defendant drove away. Mr. Munnerlyn followed defendant, described defendant’s car for the operator and told her its location.
Police eventually located defendant, pulled him over and searched his car. One officer found a loaded, unregistered revolver under the driver’s seat of defendant’s car. The officer said defendant was a little upset, but cooperative. Defendant also testified on his own behalf as to the motorcycle incident. He admitted having the gun that day and said it was under his armpit when Mr. Munnerlyn and Mr. McKinsie arrived with the motorcycle. He said his brother-in-law had given it to him the night before, but he was not sure if he wanted to keep it. He was planning to take the gun inside his mother’s house, where his brother-in-law lived, because his motor home was not secure.
As defendant was leaving his motor home to take the gun into his mother’s house, Mr. Munnerlyn called to say he was just down the street. While Mr. Munnerlyn and Mr. McKinsie were unloading the motorcycle, defendant was “preparing” an earpiece for his phone. When he was done, he put the earpiece in his ear, put the phone in his pocket, and took the gun out from under his arm. He denied being upset with Mr. Munnerlyn and denied pointing the gun at either man.
Defendant said he asked Mr. Munnerlyn about an earlier motorcycle deal they had, for which defendant had not been fully paid. Mr. Munnerlyn stated, “That is a done data,” meaning a done deal, to which defendant replied, “Sir, I ain’t boo-boo,” meaning a fool. Although defendant was not pointing the gun at Mr. Munnerlyn, he saw the gun and shouted to Ms. Huerta, “He’s got a gun, call the police.” Defendant tried to assure the two men that the gun had nothing to do with them. He was about to go into his mother’s house, when Mr. McKinsie threw up his hands and said they should not call the police and should just “forget this.” Defendant “tucked the gun away” under a sweater and they all walked toward their cars. Instead of going inside his mother’s house, defendant left in his car so the others would not be afraid and so they would stop yelling and bothering his mother. Once in his car, defendant decided to go to Smart & Final to buy bacon for his mother.
Defendant said that, prior to that day, he had seven or eight interactions with Mr. Munnerlyn and had sold him two motorcycles, neither of which had been paid in full. He said he had given Mr. Munnerlyn all the keys he had for the returned motorcycle. Mr. Munnerlyn told defendant he could not pay for the motorcycle and that he would return it to defendant on January 24th (not the 23rd). Defendant was not expecting Mr. Munnerlyn on the 23rd.
3. Charges Against Defendant
The People first filed a three-count information against defendant stemming from the motorcycle incident. … Counts one and two charged defendant with assault with a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2). As to those counts, the information also alleged defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5. Count three charged defendant with carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (a)(1).
About one week later, the People filed a two-count information against defendant stemming from the dialysis center incident. … Count one charged defendant with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, and count two charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon… As to both counts, the information also alleged defendant inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
4. Joinder and Consolidation
The prosecution moved under Penal Code section 954 to join all charges against defendant and consolidate the two cases. The trial court granted the motion… An amended information was filed, charging defendant with five counts…
. . .
5. Verdict and Sentencing
The jury found defendant guilty of counts one through four and found true the special allegations as to counts one and two that defendant personally used a firearm. As to count five (assault with a deadly weapon), the jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault in violation of Penal Code section 240. The jury came to no decision as to the count four enhancement (infliction of great bodily injury), and the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss that enhancement.
The court sentenced defendant to five years in prison. Defendant appealed.
. . .
Defendant argues consolidation of the dialysis center case with the motorcycle case was improper for two reasons. First, he claims the trial court abused its discretion in granting consolidation and denying his motion to sever. Second, he claims that, as a result of the consolidation, his trial was grossly unfair, resulting in a violation of his rights to due process. We disagree on both counts.
. . .
Although defendant points to individual aspects of each case, as between the two cases, there was no significant difference in the strength of the evidence before the court. At the preliminary hearing for each case, an eyewitness testified (Mr. McKinsie for the motorcycle incident; Mr. Cerna for the dialysis center incident) and identified defendant as the perpetrator of the alleged offenses. In addition, in each case, there was evidence tending to corroborate each witness’s testimony. In the motorcycle incident case, a police officer testified he found a loaded gun in defendant’s car. And, in the dialysis center case, the trial court took notice of the scar on Mr. Cerna’s face where defendant hit him with the metal footrest. Based on the preliminary hearing testimony, there was no significant difference between the strength of the two cases.
. . .
In summary, the trial court did not err in joining the charges or in denying defendant’s motion to sever, and the joinder of charges for trial did not deprive defendant of due process.
. . .
Finally, defendant argues that, cumulatively, the trial court’s errors, the prosecutor’s misconduct and the “weakness” of the motorcycle incident evidence compel reversal of defendant’s conviction on counts one, two and three (regarding the motorcycle incident). We have concluded, however, that the trial court did not err and the prosecutor’s misconduct was not prejudicial. In addition, defendant cites no authority supporting his argument that, because the motorcycle incident evidence was allegedly “weak,” reversal is somehow required. We reject defendant’s cumulative impact argument.
. . .
Related posts (automatically generated):
