Public outcry floods court over sexually violent predator placement near Turlock
A Stanislaus County judge on Friday heard extensive testimony and reviewed thousands of public comments opposing the proposed placement of a sexually violent predator near Turlock. She stopped short of issuing a ruling, though, continuing the matter to next month.
Superior Court Judge Carrie Stephens said she has spent hours reviewing public input submitted after the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office invited residents to weigh in on the proposed placement of Kevin Gray at a rural property at 400 N. Central Ave. in Turlock.
“I was recently given a bunch of comments from the public,” Stephens said in court, adding that she had not yet finished reviewing all of them.
Prosecutors said about 2,500 public comments were collected in December through voicemails, emails and a dedicated website. The submissions were formally entered into the court record Friday as part of a placement review hearing.
Gray, who has been designated a sexually violent predator, is seeking release from state custody under supervision, with Liberty Healthcare proposing the North Central Avenue site as a residence.
Neighbors describe children, bus stops and limited visibility
Several nearby residents testified about safety concerns tied to the proposed site, including the presence of children, the location of school bus stops, and limited visibility in the rural area.
Erica Farmer, who said she lives next door to the proposed placement site and has three children, testified that the home is within roughly 150 feet of her property and is visible from both her front and backyard. She described a lack of sidewalks or streetlights and said dense fog frequently limits visibility in the area.
Farmer told the court that her children and their friends regularly play outside and that multiple school bus stops are nearby. She said she has never been contacted by Liberty Healthcare or the Department of State Hospitals about Gray’s placement.
“If he’s placed there, my children will no longer be safe,” Farmer testified, adding that she would significantly restrict her children’s outdoor activity if Gray were released to the site.
Another nearby resident, Maria Padilla, testified through an interpreter. She said she lives next door and would not allow her children to play outside if the placement is approved.
“He likes children” she said. “He might show his parts.”
Sheriff’s Office disputes fixed response-time claims
Sgt. Nate Crain, a supervisor with the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office, testified that it would be inaccurate to claim a guaranteed response time for calls for service at the proposed site, contradicting a figure cited in Liberty Healthcare’s site assessment.
Crain said response times vary widely depending on call volume, deputy availability and geographic coverage, noting that a single deputy may be responsible for a large rural area at any given time.
“It could be minutes, or it could be hours,” he testified, adding that deputies often are pulled to other calls or booking duties. He also said he was not aware of Liberty Healthcare or the Department of State Hospitals contacting the Sheriff’s Office to coordinate response planning for the proposed placement.
School district testimony highlights bus routes
Heath Wool, a transportation supervisor from the Chatom Union Elementary School District, testified that there are 22 school bus stops within a one-mile radius of the proposed site, serving 47 students, including some as young as transitional kindergarten age.
The supervisor said bus pickups and drop-offs sometimes occur in darkness during winter months and fog can delay routes, further limiting visibility for children waiting at stops.
The witness said neither Liberty Healthcare nor the state had contacted the district to ask about bus routes or student activity near the site.
County official cites permitting concerns
Denny Ferreira, a Stanislaus County planning and building official, testified that while the primary residence at the property appears permitted, a secondary residential structure on the site lacks approval for occupancy.
Liberty Healthcare and the state had previously proposed to house Timothy Weathers, another sexually violent predator, in the secondary property. However, county officials deemed the structure uninhabitable.
The official said he was not aware of Liberty Healthcare contacting his department as part of its site review.
DA attacks site assessment, cites Gray’s history
After the hearing, Deputy District Attorney Wendell Emerson said prosecutors believe the proposed site is fundamentally unsuitable given Gray’s history and the characteristics of the property.
Emerson said Gray previously has expressed fantasies about kidnapping young girls and holding them against their will — statements the deputy DA said were documented by two doctors. Placing Gray on a large, rural property with multiple structures would give him the means to act on those thoughts, Emerson argued.
“Why would we give someone the means to do what they fantasize or desire to do by placing him at a location like this?” Emerson said.
Emerson also criticized Liberty Healthcare’s site assessment, calling it incomplete and inaccurate. He said the assessment failed to account for nearby children and bus stops and relied on an unrealistic estimate of law-enforcement response time.
“It’s basically Google Maps,” Emerson said of the assessment’s claim that deputies could respond within 14 minutes. “They haven’t reached out to the Sheriff’s Office to start a game plan.”
Emerson said nearly all the public comments submitted opposed the placement and argued the court should weigh the impact on families living nearby.
“Their kids would essentially be prisoners in their homes,” he said.
Next steps
Judge Stephens did not rule Friday and set the next hearing for April 3, when testimony from medical experts — including Liberty Healthcare clinicians and a defense-retained expert — is expected.
Stephens also said she’d be able to review the entirety of the 2,500 public comments submitted to the district attorney by the April hearing.
Defense attorney Martin Baker declined to comment after the hearing.
This story was originally published January 16, 2026 at 8:03 PM.
