The murder trial of Hollister’s Travis J. Hoffmeister, accused in the June 2007 killing of Christella Macias, began Thursday with opening statements.
Hoffmeister, 27, is accused of murdering the 20-year-old Hollister woman and dumping her body on C Street with her head covered by a sweatshirt and bag. Investigators in early 2008 connected Hoffmeister to the crime through DNA.
In his opening statement, prosecutor Patrick Palacios recalled the morning when a resident of the westside Hollister cul-de-sac discovered her body and saw the victim “bludgeoned to death with an object, a heavy object,” which Palacios eventually alleged to have been a hammer that left a “waffle pattern” on her face. Palacios went on to recount how the California Department of Justice responded to the scene, upon request from Hollister police, to collect forensic evidence.
In January, the detective overseeing the case, Jeff Caires, received word from the DOJ of a “DNA hit” for Hoffmeister found on the outside and inside of the plastic bag – and also on her clothing, her neck and breast, and other body parts, Palacios told the jury, which included seven men and seven women, including two alternates.
The prosecutor went on to explain that the detective then interviewed Hoffmeister at the San Benito County Jail, where he had been held on an unrelated charge, and alleged the defendant in a four-hour interview repeatedly denied knowing or ever meeting Macias. The detective, Palacios told jurors, eventually asked the defendant why his DNA was “all over her.”
“No response – no explanation,” Palacios said, regarding Hoffmeister.
Palacios said the investigator subsequently interviewed Hoffmeister’s ex-girlfriend, the mother of his child, and found out the defendant had a history of breaking things and punching holes in an apartment, and that the two shared a storage unit where authorities discovered hammers with waffle-shaped patterns and an array of garbage bags similar to the one found on the victim’s head. They also came across a book about serial killers with a page marked in a chapter about how a killer “bludgeoned his mother to death with a hammer,” Palacios contended.
Palacios moved on to allege that a calendar shared by Hoffmeister and his ex-girlfriend included an inscription one day from her saying, “Travis choked me – I passed out,” and a day later him saying, “I wasn’t trying to killer her.” Palacios said the last inscription was a week before authorities found the body of Macias.
Palacios said investigators followed up with the landlord of an apartment where Hoffmeister had been staying at the time of the murder. The landlord recalled finding a large stain on the unit’s carpet and not noticing it right away because it had been covered by a rug, Palacios said. The landlord found the rug in storage and handed it over to authorities. Palacios alleged the DOJ matched DNA on the rug with that of Macias.
Palacios also alleged authorities have recordings that prove Hoffmeister admitted to knowing Macias at the time of the murder.
Hoffmeister’s attorney Arlene Allan followed up with a much briefer opening statement than Palacios. She projected an overhead map of the location where the body was found and acknowledged DNA discovered at the scene matched that of Hoffmeister.
Allan pointed out that investigators also discovered semen from an unidentified person on the clothes Macias had been wearing when found on C Street.
The defendant’s attorney alleged that Macias was a transient who had a lot of enemies – Allan contended the victim was a known methamphetamine user who participated in prostitution and had a reputation as a thief. The attorney said that during the initial investigation, “several people” voiced concerns about residents who might have been responsible for her death.
“None of these people identified Travis Hoffmeister,” Allan said.
Before the defense called the first witness – the man who discovered the body in 2007 – Allan pointed out that Macias routinely carried a backpack and cell phone. She said authorities did not find the backpack and found the cell phone in others’ possession.
