SAN FRANCISCO — A San Francisco Superior Court preliminary hearing concluded on Tuesday, as Judge Patrick S. Thompson determined there was adequate evidence to proceed with serious charges against a 32-year-old man accused of murder, child endangerment, and firearm possession.
The hearing underscored the contentious nature of the case, with Deputy District Attorney Kourtney Bell asserting that the defendant poses a considerable threat to public safety. In contrast, Deputy Public Defender Kwixuan Maloof argued that the incident should not be viewed as a calculated crime but rather as a heat-of-the-moment reaction—one that should be considered manslaughter.
“This case involves an unimaginable family tragedy — not a calculated crime,” Maloof stated. “This is a deeply tragic situation involving a family in crisis. The events that unfolded were the result of a deeply emotional, highly volatile confrontation between a mother and her adult child that escalated beyond control.”
The altercation, which led to the mother’s death, occurred on June 21, 2025, at 159 Brookdale Ave. The accused had been watering the lawn when his mother, returning home from a football game with her husband and three children, engaged him in a dispute.
San Francisco Police Sgt. Francis Feliciano testified that tensions grew during the day. Feliciano noted that after arriving home, the mother argued with her son, claiming the situation escalated to the point where the accused brandished a handgun.
According to Feliciano, the defendant pointed the weapon at his mother’s head, attempted to fire, disengaged the safety, and shot her.
During police questioning, the accused reportedly expressed that he did not premeditate the act, declaring he had reached a breaking point and “couldn’t take it anymore.”
Adding to the defense’s perspective, Maloof revealed that the relationship between the victim and her son was fraught with tension. He noted that the mother had previously threatened both the accused and his sister with knives.
Following the shooting, the accused displayed actions interpreted as remorseful. He draped his jacket over his mother’s head and remained close to her body. Holding his hands up, he surrendered to authorities and did not flee the scene. Maloof pointed out, “He is the one who called 911.”
Maloof further highlighted the accused’s vulnerable mental state, revealing that he had contemplated suicide after the incident, saying he thought about shooting himself and his dog.
Upon arrival at the scene, Officer Jordan Anthony Oryall, Jr. testified about finding the accused in handcuffs near a woman lying unresponsive on the grass. The officer conducted CPR but found no pulse.
“Our client is devastated,” Maloof stated. “What happened was not an act of malice, hatred, or premeditation, but a tragic, heat-of-the-moment response during an emotionally charged argument. The evidence will show this was not murder, but a case of overwhelming emotional distress and a loss of control in an incredibly volatile moment.”
Feliciano confirmed during cross-examination that the accused described the shooting as a spontaneous act of desperation, noting, “I didn’t plan it. I was at my limit. I couldn’t take it anymore.”
The deceased’s husband also provided testimony regarding the events leading to the shooting. He revealed that his wife had been vocally upset about her son’s behavior—specifically accusing him of smoking marijuana. Before she arrived home, she had already argued with him over the phone.
Witness reports included the victim’s final words to her son, “Do it, do it if you have the balls to, do it,” illustrating the fraught environment that preceded the encounter.
Maloof reiterated the point that intense emotional states within families can cloud judgment, framing the tragic incident as one that did not stem from malice. “The law recognizes that intense emotional states — especially within families — can impair judgment and lead to actions that, while deeply regrettable, are not murder,” he noted.
During the proceedings, Maloof made a request to reduce the charges to manslaughter based on his narrative of the events leading to the incident. However, Judge Thompson asserted that he lacked the authority to modify the charges; such decisions would fall to a jury or district attorney, as the legal process continued.
The issue of potential child endangerment charges arose, concerning three minors who reportedly witnessed the shooting. Bell argued that the children’s proximity to the incident justified these additional charges, despite the accused not having custody over them.
Judge Thompson ultimately deemed that there was ample reason for the case to proceed, allowing for the murder charge to be addressed by a jury, along with the child endangerment charges. He remarked that the accused’s decision to disengage the gun’s safety effectively indicated some measure of premeditation.
Maloof mentioned that the Penal Code section 188(a)(2) allows for provocation to negate malice. His argument centered on the claim that the defendant had been provoked by his mother during a day filled with escalating conflicts, stating, “If there’s provocation, there’s no malice.”
In a final attempt to minimize the seriousness of the charges, Maloof made a motion to reduce the felonies to misdemeanors. This request was denied, with Judge Thompson clarifying that preliminary hearings focus on whether a case should progress rather than concluding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As the preliminary hearing wrapped up, Judge Thompson expressed that the jury would ultimately have to evaluate the statements made and the complex family dynamics that contributed to this tragic outcome.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for July 22 at 9 a.m.
The accused faces a significant legal battle ahead, with the prosecution arguing for murder and the defense contending that the circumstances surrounding the incident should warrant a lesser charge.
image source from：davisvanguard
