Former Waterford, Hughson coach faces trial over allegations involving babysitter
A Stanislaus County judge on Thursday ordered David Odom, a former coach at Waterford and Hughson high schools, to stand trial on felony sex crime charges after a woman testified that she engaged in a sexual relationship with him while she was 16 years old and babysitting his children.
Judge Robert B. Westbrook ruled at the conclusion of a preliminary hearing in Department 8 of Stanislaus County Superior Court that prosecutors had presented enough evidence to hold Odom to answer on one count of oral copulation with a person under 18 and one count of sexual penetration with a foreign object of a person under 18.
The ruling means the case will move toward trial.
Odom, 40, has pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s key witness, identified in court as Jane Doe, testified that she began babysitting Odom’s children in 2012 after meeting him through church and through her older brother while she was 16 years old.
She told the court she babysat at Odom’s Waterford home frequently while his wife was working and he exercised in the garage.
At the time, Odom was married and had two children, she testified.
According to Jane Doe, what began as conversations about problems in her personal life gradually evolved into a closer relationship. “He kind of made me feel like he was a really safe place, a safe person to talk to,” she testified.
She said the relationship later became flirtatious before progressing to kissing and eventually sexual contact.
Jane Doe testified that she and Odom engaged sexual relations multiple times, usually in his bedroom, while she was babysitting his children.
Asked about her feelings at the time, she told the court, “I thought I was in love with him.”
Jane Doe said the relationship continued until late 2013, when her father contacted law enforcement after becoming concerned about Odom’s interactions with her.
She testified that a sheriff’s deputy questioned her on Dec. 24, 2013, and asked whether she was involved in a romantic or sexual relationship with Odom. She told the deputy no.
On Thursday, she acknowledged that answer was false.
When asked by Chief Deputy District Attorney Wendell Emerson why she denied the relationship at the time, Jane Doe testified: “I was scared myself, and I was, I guess, trying to protect him.”
The hearing focused heavily on that contradiction.
Defense attorney Rebecka Monez repeatedly questioned Jane Doe about her statements to investigators in 2013 and evidence that law enforcement attempted to review during the original investigation.
Jane Doe testified that she had deleted messages from her device before deputies examined it.
The defense also highlighted that no charges were filed following the original investigation.
Years later, however, the case resurfaced.
Detectives reopen case
Waterford Police Services Detective Alexander Ruezga testified that he began investigating Odom in 2024 after receiving information involving Odom and another young woman.
While reviewing records, Ruezga discovered a 2013 report involving Jane Doe and reopened that line of inquiry.
He testified that after contacting Jane Doe, she disclosed the sexual relationship and provided an account consistent with her testimony in court Thursday.
Ruezga also interviewed Odom. According to the detective, Odom denied having a sexual relationship with Jane Doe but acknowledged kissing her on the cheek.
The detective testified that investigators later obtained a warrant for Odom’s cellphone and conducted a forensic examination of the device.
During cross-examination, Ruezga acknowledged that investigators found no child sexual abuse material or other illegal material on the phone.
“There were a lot of pictures on his phone of high schoolers,” Ruezga testified.
Defense calls one witness to stand
Monez called one witness in the defense case: Jane Doe’s father.
He testified that he contacted law enforcement in 2013 after hearing allegations from others that Odom was involved with his daughter. He told the court he never personally witnessed any sexual conduct between Odom and his daughter and never saw them kiss or engage in sexual touching.
He also testified that he was unable to access messages on his daughter’s phone at the time and believed she had deleted communications before investigators reviewed the device.
After hearing testimony from both sides, Westbrook found probable cause existed to believe the charged crimes had been committed and that Odom committed them.
Following the hearing, Emerson said prosecutors were satisfied with the ruling. “I was pleased with the judge’s ruling that there was enough evidence to hold Mr. Odom over for trial,” he said.
Emerson said Jane Doe’s explanation for denying the allegations in 2013 was consistent with circumstances prosecutors often encounter in sex crime cases. “She was young, being manipulated by an older individual, and she was in love with him at that time and was being taken advantage of.”
He said that when investigators contacted her years later, “she’s no longer under his spell, so to speak, and was able to say what happened.”
Emerson acknowledged that prosecuting crimes more than a decade after they allegedly occurred can be challenging.
“Obviously, the passage of time makes these cases more difficult,” he said. “But in the sex crimes unit that I oversee, it’s fairly common, and that’s why it’s important that we get a thorough investigation done and locate and collect all the evidence we can to make a case.”
Monez declined to comment after the hearing.
Odom is scheduled to return to Stanislaus County Superior Court on July 2 for arraignment on the information.
