PROSECUTORS REST ARGUMENTS IN TUFFREE CASE : ON TAPE, DEFENDANT REPEATS CLAIMS HE DIDN'T FIRE FIRST.

Byline: Michael Coit Daily News Staff Writer

Prosecutors completed their arguments Thursday in the trial of Daniel Tuffree, with jurors hearing the conclusion of a recorded interview in which Tuffree said he never intended to kill Simi Valley police Officer Michael Clark.

The interview was introduced to bolster the prosecution's contention that Tuffree concealed a loaded handgun and shot Clark as he responded to a call to check on Tuffree at his home. Tuffree's public defenders are expected to challenge Clark's conduct leading to the fatal confrontation on Aug. 4 of last year.

In the interview, recorded within hours of the shooting, the Ventura Superior Court jury heard Tuffree hold to his account. Tuffree said he didn't want a confrontation and that Clark fired first after Tuffree raised his handgun at the kitchen window, with Tuffree returning the gunfire.

``The truth is going to come out,'' Tuffree said to Robert Hopkins, the Simi Valley police detective who interviewed Tuffree with a psychologist representing the Ventura County District Attorney.

On the tape, Hopkins contested Tuffree's truthfulness and said witnesses stated Tuffree fired first and killed Clark.

``You're just not man enough to admit it,'' Hopkins said. ``There's witnesses to this shooting. We know how it happened.''

Hopkins went further before concluding the interview. ``Obviously, you're going to have to present yourself in the best way you can. You're going to have to live with that.''

Tuffree stands indicted on a charge of murdering Clark and attempting to murder one of two other officers who backed up Clark. The indictment includes a special circumstance that Tuffree intentionally killed Clark, making Tuffree eligible for the death penalty.

Tuffree's public defenders have filed a motion to dismiss the special circumstance allegation. Arguments are set for Monday, so the trial is scheduled to resume with the defense case Tuesday.

On Thursday, after the jury was excused, the public defenders briefly argued why prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to seek the death penalty for Tuffree.

Deputy Public Defender Neil Quinn, who is assisting on the motion, suggested Clark went beyond his duty as a police officer when he made contact with Tuffree at his home and that the special circumstance law doesn't apply in the case.

``If a crime is being committed engaging those people, then they have a duty,'' Quinn said.

Capt. Richard Wright, the prosecution's final witness, testified that welfare checks are a frequent call for service and they are within the Simi Valley Police Department's public safety mission.

``Our mission is to protect and serve the citizens of Simi Valley,'' said Wright, who was the department's acting chief when Clark was killed.

Clark was the first officer to respond to the call from a mental health worker to check on Tuffree's well-being.

Ending in SIMI edition

Tuffree's public defenders have said Clark's killing was the tragic end to events centered on Tuffree's unsuccessful efforts to refill a Valium prescription.

Prosecutors charge Tuffree shot Clark because he held a grudge against the police for once confiscating the same handgun Tuffree used to shoot the officer.

Ending in CONEJO edition

Tuffree's lawyers have said Clark's killing was the tragic end to events centered on Tuffree's unsuccessful efforts to refill a Valium prescription. They contend Tuffree was under stress and the officers should have walked away once Tuffree told Clark he wanted to be left alone.

Prosecutors charge Tuffree shot Clark because he held a grudge against the police for once confiscating the same handgun Tuffree used to shoot the officer.