Larson Newspapers

A Yavapai County Superior Court judge threw out three motions in the case of a Cottonwood woman pulled from her car during a traffic stop last year; one of which would have sent the case back to the Grand Jury for review.

A Yavapai County Superior Court judge threw out three motions in the case of a Cottonwood woman pulled from her car during a traffic stop last year; one of which would have sent the case back to the Grand Jury for review.

Nearly two dozen people filled the Camp Verde courtroom Friday, April 4, to show their support for Dibor Roberts, a 49-year-old Cottonwood resident charged with resisting arrest and unlawful flight.

The charges stem from a nighttime traffic stop in the summer of 2007 when a Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office deputy tried to pull Roberts over for speeding on Beaverhead Flat Road.

The deputy eventually forced Roberts off the road, smashed her window and pulled her from her car; Roberts maintains that she was just trying to drive to a well-lit area before stopping for the officer.

Defense attorney Stephen Renard argued last week that the charge of resisting arrest should be dropped since Roberts wasn’t actually arrested until nearly an hour after the traffic stop.

“In order to resist arrest, there actually has to be an arrest,” Renard said.

Prosecutor Glen Hammond countered with the argument that any reasonable person could have determined that a fully uniformed officer with his weapon drawn could be seen as a prelude to an arrest.

Renard also wanted that case sent back to the Grand Jury for review on the basis of eyewitness testimony Renard said wasn’t given the proper weight when the case was first examined.

Renard asked Judge Michael Bluff to allow the Grand Jury to hear the recorded testimony he believes clearly shows how determined Roberts was to communicate with Sgt. Jeff Newnum about her intentions to drive to a lit area.

Instead, the jury was given a summarization of the eyewitness account from Newnum, who didn’t make it clear how emphatic Roberts was, Renard said. Hammond said the motion should have been filed months ago; Renard said he filed the motion within two weeks of learning about the tape’s existence.

Roberts’ charges of resisting arrest and felony flight were dismissed once before in November, forcing prosecutors to present the case a second time to the Grand Jury. Roberts was quickly indicted again on the same charges.

In his third motion, Renard argued that Newnum, who has not yet been cross-examined, should be forced to testify at a deposition before the trial.

A deposition is a proceeding where a witness gives testimony under oath and the testimony

is recorded.

Newnum has so far resisted Renard’s efforts to depose him, citing Arizona’s victim rights laws that permit victims to refuse giving testimony before trial.

Hammond said that Newnum was clearly a victim, and that his life had been placed in danger by standing in the dark road and that he had sustained injuries while taking Roberts into custody.

Renard argued that Roberts’ due process rights under the U.S. Constitution trump Newnum’s protection under Arizona

law.

Bluff didn’t agree; he denied all three motions. Roberts’ trial is scheduled to begin Wednesday, May 14.

Mark Lineberger can be reached
at 567-3341 or e-mail
CVEditor@larsonnewspapers.com