California Department of Justice assisted with evidence

“California DOJ criminalists deserve recognition for the important forensic work they do to assist in investigations and trials. Accurate, reliable scientific evidence is a critical part of holding impaired drivers accountable and ensuring that prosecutors can present the facts clearly in court.”

CSLEA President Alan Barcelona

UKIAH  – On August 26, 2026, a Mendocino County Superior Court jury returned in a matter of minutes from its deliberations to announce it had found Jodine Rene Burkhart, 60, of Redwood Valley, guilty of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or greater, both as misdemeanors.

The evidence presented at trial showed the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was tested by breath at .13/.12 on the night of September 26, 2025.

Per witnesses, Burkhart had been trespassing and trying to load hay into her truck at a private property in Redwood Valley when she was confronted by the armed property owner. She repeatedly insisted she had paid a “homeless man” for the hay, but then fled in her pickup truck when she overheard the property owner talking to the 9-1-1 dispatcher.

The defendant and her vehicle were eventually located in Calpella by law enforcement a short time later. She was evaluated at the scene of the stop and, based on overall observations, field sobriety tests, and the results of the CHP’s evidential portable alcohol system (EPAS), she was arrested by the CHP for DUI.

The defense attempted a “necessity” defense at trial. Under California law, a driver arrested for DUI may attempt to fight that DUI charge at trial by claiming necessity if the intoxicated driver drove to prevent severe and immediate harm that arose as a result of a sudden and unexpected emergency. However, for one to claim lawful necessity, the driver cannot be the cause of the crisis.

The prosecutor successfully argued that Burkhart provoked the confrontation with the property owner who was merely seeking to protect that which was his. One cannot legally claim necessity to escape what may or may not be a dangerous situation that he or she initiates through criminal behavior.

The law enforcement agencies that developed the evidence presented at trial were the California Highway Patrol, the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office, the Department of Justice crime laboratory, and the DA’s own Bureau of Investigations.

The prosecutor who presented the People’s evidence to the jury was Deputy District Attorney Carla Ocodhain.

Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Charlotte Scott presided over the two-day trial.