Court to Study Case of Man Charged With AIDS Assault

The California Supreme Court has decided to review the case of a Santa Barbara man who faces assault charges for allegedly infecting a Ventura County woman and her baby with the AIDS virus.

The high court agreed to consider an appeal by David Scott Crother, 45, whose attorney argued that the unemployed carpenter was unconstitutionally denied a preliminary hearing after he was indicted by the Ventura County Grand Jury in January.

The Supreme Court decided to consider the Crother case and several others that question the constitutionality of portions of Proposition 115, the Crime Victims Justice Reform Initiative. All of the cases have been joined to a lead case, Bowens vs. Superior Court.

Proposition 115, passed by the voters in 1990, allows prosecutors to bring charges through grand jury indictments rather than preliminary hearings as a way of streamlining the criminal trial process.

Prosecutors say preliminary hearings cause needless delays and expense. But defense attorneys say eliminating them denies defendants the right to hear the evidence against them before trial.

Crother was indicted in January on 15 counts of assault with a deadly weapon--one for each sexual liaison that he allegedly had with an unidentified Ventura County woman between September, 1988, and August, 1989. Crother is the first person in California to be charged with assault for allegedly spreading the AIDS virus through sex.

The woman, Crother and the child that he allegedly fathered have tested positive for the virus believed to cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome, prosecutors say. Crother’s trial in Ventura County Superior Court has been suspended until the Supreme Court makes its ruling. He remains free on $1,000 bail.

Defense attorney Robert M. Sanger said Monday that he plans to file written arguments asking that the Supreme Court extend its ruling in the Bowens case to automatically apply to Crother. Without that request, the Supreme Court would rule on the lead case and send the other cases back to mid-level appeals courts for further review.

Sanger said he believes that the Supreme Court’s interest in the case indicates that it will rule in Crother’s favor. “I take this as being a favorable sign, although to a certain extent, it’s like reading tea leaves.”

Ventura County Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Vincent J. O’Neill Jr. said of the court’s decision to review the Crother case, “I’m disappointed, but not very surprised.”

O’Neill said Crother’s indictment was meant to speed his case along because the defendant and the alleged victims all have the AIDS virus, which has no known cure.

“We ought to be able to proceed with our case in part because of the physical condition of everyone that’s involved,” O’Neill said. “This means we have a pretty substantial delay.”

The Supreme Court has reviewed several portions of Proposition 115 since voters approved it on June 5, 1990, upholding some sections and striking down others.

Last December, the court rejected the contention that Proposition 115 violated the constitutional prohibition against initiatives with more than a single subject.

But the justices invalidated a key portion of the initiative that would have required state courts to follow federal rulings in determining the constitutional rights of defendants.

The justices also ruled earlier this summer that procedural portions of Proposition 115 could be applied to allegations that were made before it was passed.

Upon making that ruling, the court refused to hear an earlier petition from Crother to review his case on those grounds.

Times staff writer Philip Hager contributed to this article.