SAN JOSE
– A psychiatric evaluation will likely be the determining factor
in the case of a 13-year-old Gilroy boy facing up to six years
incarceration and $10,000 in fines for firing a pellet gun into a
group of Gilroy High School students outside the school on Dec.
11.
SAN JOSE – A psychiatric evaluation will likely be the determining factor in the case of a 13-year-old Gilroy boy facing up to six years incarceration and $10,000 in fines for firing a pellet gun into a group of Gilroy High School students outside the school on Dec. 11.
“Depending on what the evaluation says it could mitigate or aggravate the case,” said Johnny Gogo, the deputy district attorney prosecuting the case. “It could possibly help the minor and explain the reasons for his conduct – whether it’s mental or physical disability. On the other hand, it might not show anything is wrong with him and then there would be no excuse for his behavior.”
Gogo’s comments came following a short hearing Monday morning at the juvenile court facility in San Jose where Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Eugene M. Hyman ordered the results of a court-appointed psychologist’s recent examination of the boy to be released to both attorneys in the case.
The 13-year-old boy is facing three felony assault with a deadly weapon charges and an unrelated misdemeanor charge from Stanislaus County and has been in custody at juvenile hall since Dec. 11. He appeared in court Monday for the second time since the incident that put the Gilroy High School administration on edge.
Handcuffed as he entered and left the court room, the boy sat next to his mother during the hearing and hugged her tightly before returning to juvenile hall. Before the hearing ended, the boy’s mother asked the judge if the boy’s grandparents could appear as his adult guardians during his next court hearing on Jan. 13 because she couldn’t afford to miss any more time at work.
Neither the boy’s mother nor his defense attorney, Ralph Benitez, were available for comment after the hearing. The boy’s name cannot be released because he is a juvenile.
“At this point, unless there is any further information, I would expect the suspect to admit to all charges facing him,” Gogo said. “I would say there is a good chance he and the public defender will agree to a plea deal, but as far as sentencing goes the range is pretty broad depending on the evaluation.”
The confrontation began shortly before 8 a.m. Dec. 11 on Princevalle Street just east of GHS when a group of four male and one female Gilroy High students met up with a group comprised of the 13-year-old gunman, who is not enrolled in any district school; a male district student who does not attend GHS; and two female GHS students, according to police.
After a brief exchange of words, the 13-year-old boy brandished the gun from his pants and fired six to seven rounds into the opposing group from a close distance, grazing two students’ pants with pellets and hitting another near the ankle, according to police. The pistol contained an air cartridge, making it more powerful than most BB guns, police said.
Following the gun shots, school supervisors in the area immediately alerted Mike Terasaki, the Gilroy Police Department’s resource officer at the school. Terasaki quickly questioned witnesses on the crowded street just east of the school and minutes later apprehended the suspect on Glenview Court, where he had hidden the gun underneath a parked car.
Five police units and an ambulance responded to the scene. The only victim of the shooting, a GHS freshman, was treated at the scene and then taken by his parents to get the pellet lodged in his ankle removed.
GHS Principal Bob Bravo – who has only been at the school since August – said this was the first incident involving a weapon he had seen at or near the school, but he did admit that non-students loitering near the school are a perpetual concern.
Gilroy High administrators did take disciplinary action against several of the seven GHS students involved in the Dec. 11 incident, but the details of the punishments were not released.
“I won’t go into specifics,” Bravo said Dec. 13, “but I can say multiple students did have action taken against them.”
Bravo said the disciplinary action taken against the students was in line with the district policy for a situation involving a confrontation in the school zone, but he would not say if any suspensions were handed down, citing school-parent confidentiality.
