Home › News › Local News
Ward not guilty in pudding toss incident
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsA state youth prison ward with mental and emotional problems was found not guilty Friday of charges related to flicking pudding at a guard.
Angelica Rodriguez, 20, was facing misdemeanor battery charges for tossing the dessert in May at correctional officer and counselor Matthew McHendrey. Rodriguez, who is on psychiatric medication at the Ventura Youth Correctional Facility in Camarillo, was under camera surveillance at the time in a room for wards who have threatened to harm themselves.
Rodriguez pleaded not guilty and testified she did not remember the incident because she had not taken her medication that day. The Fresno woman, who has taken psychiatric drugs since she was 7, said she often blacks out when not taking her medicine.
McHendrey testified he had gone into the room to remove her dinner tray and toilet paper that Rodriguez had put on the overhead camera lens.
As McHendrey left the room, Rodriguez flicked pudding from a foam cup at him with her fingers, staining his shirt, he said.
Under California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation policy, the incident was reported to the Ventura County District Attorney's Office.
"Any time any ward throws anything at a guard, it's considered a crime and must be reported to the local DA," said Jonathan Parsley, a spokesman for the corrections department. "Sure it may be pudding, but it could be anything."
Parsley said guards have no discretion on whether to report the incident.
"The District Attorney is the one who can take into account any extenuating circumstances, such as is the ward mentally ill, were they taking their medications, and decide not to file the case," Parsley said.
Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Huynh, who supervised certified law clerk Anthony Zepede's prosecution of the case, refused to comment on the decision to pursue a trial of Rodriguez.
Trial cost $6,744 a day
The jury deliberated for about three hours before unanimously rejecting the prosecution's case. The trial took a little more than two days of court time at a cost of $6,744 a day, according to general cost figures provided by the court administration.
For Deputy Public Defender Nicholas Gray, his client's trial was a waste of taxpayer money and judicial resources.
"This is an example of basically a child of the government, and here's her government, mainly the DA's Office, punishing her for something that is a result of her mental illness, not from bad behavior," Gray said.
Serving time for vandalism
Rodriguez is serving time in the youth facility on felony vandalism charges for throwing a chair through a window, Gray said.
She was made a ward of the state at birth and lived in foster care throughout her childhood. She first saw a psychiatrist at age 5, Gray said. While at the youth facility, she was receiving treatment for her mental issues by counselors such as McHendrey.
Glen Wilcox, a prospective juror in the case, said he also was perplexed about the decision to prosecute. Although not chosen for the jury, the Oak Park resident stayed to watch the proceedings out of curiosity.
"I kept waiting to hear she had gouged the guard with her fingernails and that he had to get medical care, and all he said was that he had to wash his clothes," Wilcox said.
"I just thought it was so sad, this poor kid a ward of the state all her life. No one would pick her up and give her a chance. It seemed to me this trial was more about giving a new prosecutor some trial experience than seeking justice."
Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 28, 2007 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is really sad. This poor child has been a ward of the state since birth. Never being loved and held like she should have. Of course she is going to have mental problems. AND why did no one make sure she had taken her medication that day? My heart goes out to this child!!!!
Posted by Ventura22 on July 28, 2007 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are other, more effective ways to handle a pudding flicker. Unfortunalely, in this case, the prison staff had no flexibility in reporting it. The people who make such lame and restrictive rules about having to report such trivial things are the same ones who push for such rules and prisoners rights....and then turn around and criticize the system for following the rules they set fourth!
I worked corrections many years ago and if it had been me, she would have met my baton, been fire hosed or been maced, and that would have been the end of it. No fuss, no muss, no paperwork, no DA involvement(unheard of back then!)... Most likely, such an inmate would have never repeated a stunt like that again, and would have straightened-up fast. Of course, this one is crazy and requires meds, so why are they so suprised when she flings food around? They should be glad all she tossed was food,and not feces or urine, which is common for these types of inmates to do.
Posted by Comments on July 28, 2007 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you kidding me? We spent this sort of money on a "pudding flicking" incident? Criminy! This woman clearly has some mental health issues and has since she was so young. Did we really need to go through all of this for "flicking" pudding at someone? Ugh.
Posted by frankford on July 28, 2007 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was selected as a juror in this case and thankfully the procescution excused me from the jury box before the trial got underway. No explanation was offered, perhaps it was because during jury selection I asked what a "battery" is? I wanted to know if it was an actual assault involving injury, or something like this turned out to be.
Under the circumstances I would have found Ms. Rodriquez not guilty too. And I agree trying her was a waste of money and resources. It cost my employer nearly $500 too.
Posted by phonewizzard on July 28, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this truly newsworthy? She flicked a bowl of pudding for Gods sakes. Whew!!
Posted by surfmedic91 on July 28, 2007 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura22, good thing you're not in corrections anymore. You have the wrong attitude. Inmates, criminals, mentally ill people do not change overnight so this would probably happened again even if you used your baton or a fire hose you wouldn't have access to at a youth correctional facility. This isn't San Quentin. "Crazy" is not a diagnosis and probably this way because of growing up in the foster system and correctional system around people like yourself with such a negative attitude. You must have done it for the money and not to help people.
Posted by imbetnonit on July 28, 2007 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for reminding us how our tax dollars are wasted. Whoever was responsible for passing out morning meds should have been on trial. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy the guard a new shirt. (did he try to "shout" the stain out?).
Posted by Ventura22 on July 28, 2007 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Funny thing is back then, corrections was a LOT different and there was not a lot of money in it, but it was a secure job. Staff assaults were fewer. We saw less returnees so I guess the old way of handling things wasn't so bad after all; not that I enjoyed watching inmates get cold clocked, tear gassed or hosed down. Inmates are inmates for a reason and corrections staff are charged with keeping them away from the rest of you; let's not forget that. They had to work to get where they are at, regardless of whether or not it's society's fault.
I'm sure it's an even more difficult job nowadays with restrictive BS policies in-place, like having to file a report for having pudding flicked on your shirt by a 5150. When you remove the officer's ability to exercise discretion, handle the problem at a lower level and mandate them to report every single act, it's gonna get expensive for the system. The public wanted prisoner's rights, they got them and this is the negative side of that; the local courts and jury pools get to foot the costs. I'm not saying what went on in the days past was the best way to handle all inmates but overall, it was FAR more effective at correcting bad behavior and cost the system much less.
Posted by rebel123 on July 28, 2007 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unbelievable waste of tax payers' money.
Posted by NUKEM on July 28, 2007 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura22, I think your screen name should be "Catch22." You make about as much sense as a catch 22. I spent 23 years in law enforcement and dealt with the same people out of the jail that wind up in the jails. Yes, there is a reason for them being there and sometimes they are destined to be in jail simply because life has dealt them a bad hand. That doesn't give you Carte Blanche to beat the crap out of them whenever you feel the need to beat on someone. I can count on one hand the number of times I had to use a baton in 23 years.
I'm sorry but your comment disgusts me.
Posted by kelly13 on July 28, 2007 at 7:59 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Ventura22 on July 28, 2007 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nukem?? what does that name imply?? Certnaily nothing about peace and kindness(although, I do like thre ring to it). So, you whine about my disgusting comments? Ha! Better not toss stones too far from your glass house. And yes, I too can count the number of times I used my noggin thumper on one hand. It is highly apparent you missed out on spending any real time working in the old pen to discover what it's really like to deal with the criminals on a daily basis you helped put away.
When they acted up, our job was to make sure as much as we could that they didn't repeat that behavior, and a lot fo times that meant protecting them from each other. The name went from CA state penitentiaries to CA state prisons to CA department of corrections to the present term CA department of corrections and rehabilitation. What will they call it next? Department of ______?
Posted by AnnaWhaat on July 29, 2007 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
glammi,My thoughts exactly ! Its guards like that ,that think they can rule the world ! Nothing is beyond them.......blah blah blah..........I would call it abuse by an guard. Just as much as many women in prison are having sexual contact with guards. These types of guards need removed and fast!!!!!!!!
NUKEM ,I agree with you! I hope your still in law enforcement cause we need more men like you!!!!!!!!
bianchimedic,Get real ! Maybe you should have been there to hold her when she was an infant, to craddle and love her. Maybe to mentor her when she was older. Some people think they can just give thier children up to the system and forget they exist !!!!!!!
Ventura22, What is wrong with dept of corrections?
And yes they should have rehabilitation. Job skills, education etc. These prisoners will one day be walking the streets again! Maybe right next to you. Do you want them rehabilitated or back to thier old ways. Is it really costing the state that much money to get them job skills? NO!!!! Most of the skills they are taught are doing things that the state makes money off of. Look at your license plate !!!! Where do you think it was made?
Posted by imbetnonit on July 29, 2007 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yes hamskid, I thought it was funny too.
Posted by celticchris51 on August 1, 2007 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The primary reason this is newsworthy (in response to phonewizzard) is because the public (who is responsible for electing the DA) and the Board of Supervisors need to be informed on how their tax dollars are being spent, and to think long and hard the next time the DA makes a plea for more money. The decision to prosecute this case was absurd on numerous levels. Thank you, Ventura Star, for running the story. The secondary reason this is newsworthy is it has the potential to provide material for comedians such as Jay Leno, which will provide visibility for the DA's office but not the kind that they would like. I strongly urge the DA to reassess priorities and to focus on criminals who are a true threat to society.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.