Newsletters: Subscribe | Log in

Jury rules Efren Carrillo not guilty of attempted peeking

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo, center, and his defense attorneys Chris Andrian, left, and Jane Gaskell, listen to Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Gary Medvigy speak to the jury in his peeking trial in Santa Rosa on Friday, April 25, 2014.

Published: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 3:36 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 3:36 p.m.

A jury ruled Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo was not guilty of attempting to peek into a neighbor's home.

The decision came shortly after the panel could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether Carrillo actually looked into her apartment. Judge Gary Medvigy then ruled the jury could consider the lesser charge of attempted peeking without deciding the more serious charge of peeking.

Defense attorney Chris Andrian objected to the decision, arguing the original count should be dismissed before the jury could consider any new charges.

Carrillo, 33, was charged with peeking into a woman's apartment in the early morning hours of July 13 in just his socks and underwear.

His trial played out last week with testimony from the woman, who is Carrillo's neighbor at the complex on Brockhurst Drive in Santa Rosa.

She testified that she was awakened by the sound of rustling blinds at her bedroom window and looked out to see a half-dressed man standing near her front door.

Carrillo, the 5th District supervisor, also took the stand, conceding he went to the woman's home looking to drink with her and have sex. But he maintained he never peeked at the woman.

Attempted peeking, a misdemeanor, carries a maximum three-month prison sentence. For a conviction, jurors must believe he took a direct step to look in a door or window and that he intended to look inside.

The panel received the case late Thursday afternoon and briefly reached a consensus Friday morning but found itself split 11-1 after one juror changed his or her mind. The jury forewoman told Medvigy that members were deadlocked, but the judge urged them to continue to weighing the evidence.

It was not disclosed if they were leaning toward guilt or innocence.

Jurors reconvened in the courtroom at 10:45 a.m. today and met until noon. When they returned from lunch, they told the judge they were still deadlocked after deliberating more than seven hours over three days. The vote was not announced.

Check back later today for updates on this story.

All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

▲ Return to Top