WOODLAND, Calif. (CN) — A former UC Davis student accused of fatally stabbing two people and injuring a third pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity Thursday.
The plea by Carlos Dominguez, 22, led the Yolo County Superior Court judge and attorneys in the case to begin discussions on how two experts will be chosen to evaluate Dominguez. Another hearing is set for Oct. 24 on that issue.
Dominguez faces two counts of murder and a count of attempted murder in connection with the April 2023 fatal stabbings of David Henry Breaux, 50, and Karim Abou Najm, 20, in Davis. A woman in a homeless encampment was stabbed, though she lived. Her 911 call ultimately led someone to spot Dominguez and to his arrest.
Judge Samuel McAdam on Thursday asked Dominguez a series of questions, ensuring he understood that he was entering two pleas — not guilty, denying accusations that he had a deadly weapon and acted with premeditation; and his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
“Yes, your honor,” Dominguez answered to each question.
That then led McAdam to discuss how they would select two qualified experts to evaluate Dominguez. Ultimately, the judge opted to spend the next week examining a list of doctors to determine who is both qualified and available. Prosecutors and Dominguez’s public defender will develop recommendations for McAdam, though the judge will make the final decision.
Dominguez’s trial is set for April 28, a date McAdam said was about two years from the slayings.
“I want to keep that trial date,” he added. “I do not want to move that trial date.”
The case against Dominguez already has taken some twists as it advanced through the courts.
Shortly after his arrest, a medical report on Dominguez stated that he wasn’t mentally competent to stand trial. Prosecutors objected, leading to a jury trial on the issue of whether Dominguez was competent at that time.
According to Michael Vitiello — distinguished professor of law at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law — competency means if Dominguez could understand the legal proceeding and help his lawyer.
During that trial, jurors heard from Dominguez’s former friends and girlfriend, as well as medical experts. They described a well-groomed, outgoing man whose hygiene deteriorated as he began to isolate himself. Doctors testified that Dominguez exhibited schizophrenic traits.
Prosecutors relented during the trial, saying they no longer believed Dominguez could assist his attorney. McAdam sent Dominguez to a state hospital, where his competency was restored. That put his case back on track toward trial early this year.
While competency and insanity share similarities in a legal sense, there are distinct differences.
Someone could be incompetent because they’re insane, Vitiello said. However, it’s possible for competency to be restored, as in Dominguez’s case.
Insanity is different.
“The key there is at the time of the killing,” Vitiello said.
Insanity involves more than a moral judgment or psychotic diagnosis. Instead, it’s about whether someone can understand the nature and quality of their acts.
Vitiello said having two pleas — not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity — is likely a legal strategy, in case the insanity plea doesn’t hold up. He argued an attorney likely wouldn’t say that his client was innocent, then follow that with the claim that if he did commit the crime, he was insane at the time.
Someone found not guilty by reason of insanity wouldn’t go to a traditional prison, but instead would be housed in a special facility. In theory, that person could one day be released.
“But instances of successful insanity defenses are few and far between,” Vitiello added.