18-Year-Old Female Sustains Serious Facial Injuries After Assault by Eureka Woman, According to HCSO

This is a press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office. The information has not been proven in a court of law and any individuals described should be presumed innocent until proven guilty:

booking photo Bernelle Fay Moran Booking Photo | Humboldt County Correctional Facility

Bernelle Fay Moran [Booking Photo | Humboldt County Correctional Facility]

On March 16, 2023, at about 7:35 p.m., Humboldt County Sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to a multi-residence property on Ole Hanson Road near Eureka for the report of an assault.Deputies arrived at the property and located an 18-year-old female victim with serious facial injuries. The victim was transported to a local hospital for medical treatment. During their investigation, deputies learned that the suspect, 54-year-old Bernelle Fay Moran, reportedly forced entry onto the property. Moran reportedly threatened multiple individuals on the property and then attacked the victim with a metal bar in the presence of a small child. The child did not sustain physical injuries from this incident. Moran fled prior to deputy arrival.While investigating, deputies received information that Moran was in the area of the 1700 block of Anderson Avenue in McKinleyville. Moran was located and taken into custody without incident.

Moran was booked into the Humboldt County Correctional Facility on charges of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (PC 245(a)(1)), child endangerment (PC 273A(b)), criminal threats (PC 422), exhibiting a deadly weapon (PC 417(a)(1)), burglary (PC 459/461(a)), battery with serious bodily injury (PC 243(d)) and entering a property without consent (PC 602.5).

Anyone with information about this case or related criminal activity is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office at (707) 445-7251 or the Sheriff’s Office Crime Tip line at (707) 268-2539.

Receive HCSO news straight to your phone or email. Subscribe to news alerts at: humboldtsheriff.org/subscribe.

Note: Suspect goes by two last names. Press release edited to reflect legal last name.

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

58 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tim
Guest
Tim
1 year ago

Well that’s confusing, who is Perkins?

MendoMama
Guest
MendoMama
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim

I thought the same thing. Who the heck is Perkins?

Xebeche
Guest
Xebeche
1 year ago
Reply to  MendoMama

There is no ‘Perkins’ mentioned in this article.

Tim
Guest
Tim
1 year ago
Reply to  Xebeche

The release was updated to remove the confusion of the suspect using 2 different last names. Which unfortunately makes the earlier comments looks weird now.

Just sayin
Guest
Just sayin
1 year ago
Reply to  MendoMama

She was/is married to one of the Perkins clan in Mck. Really classy bunch

Me
Guest
Me
1 year ago

Maybe Perkins was the victim? Someone wrote the article without proof reading it prior to hitting the send button.

Barbara Hudson
Guest
Barbara Hudson
1 year ago
Reply to  Me

The article says PERKINS fled. The victim was taken to hospital.

Jim Dogger
Guest
Jim Dogger
1 year ago
Reply to  Barbara Hudson

“…taken to A hospital” that should read, unless you’re one o’ them ‘aluminium’ folks.

laura cooskey
Guest
laura cooskey
1 year ago
Reply to  Me

See NOTE at bottom of article regarding the suspect’s two last names.

R-DOG
Guest
R-DOG
1 year ago
Reply to  Me

Perkins why would you say things about Perkins is classy people

Mary
Guest
Mary
1 year ago

And people wonder why professionals don’t want to move here, hmmm wonder if this had something to do with meth? Meth and trash its the humbolt way!!

Tim
Guest
Tim
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary

I doubt seriously that’s the issue since these kinds of problems are present in every community in the country.

The real reason is likely that we’re way the hell away from everywhere else and it isn’t easy to get back to ‘civilization’ from here.

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim

To the contrary, half of Humboldt is poor enough to qualify for MediCal. That is not true in every community in the country. Also, no-growth environmentalists and the tribes obstruct just about all new housing and economic development. Talented professionals don’t want to take the risk for their families and careers that a vocal selfish minority will prevent necessary improve to Humboldt’s economy and infrastructure. A downward spiral of decay is setting in. It’s like the people here are defeated, and won’t even try, and worse, block those who are trying. I apologize to those who are trying. I see you, but the defeatists and downtrodden are more visible than you when looking in from elsewhere in California.

Last edited 1 year ago
lkjcc
Guest
lkjcc
1 year ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

Humboldt county’s poverty rate is in no way outstanding compared to other counties in California, so that doesn’t explain anything.

Low populations, and extreme isolation would seem to have some explanatory power.

People trying to prevent Walmart from coming into the county, or asking that arkley properly remediate the soils on the balloon track before inviting Home Depot, or wanting to err on the side of protecting redwoods when it comes to widening 101, after leaving only 3% of old growth remaining.

None of these strike me as anything but extremely reasonable positions. So what are some good examples of this obstruction on the part of environmentalist?

Sigh
Guest
Sigh
1 year ago
Reply to  lkjcc

You never elaborated on who “selfish local minority” is. Only thing to go on is your insinuation it’s “environmentalists” and “tribes” who obstruct whatever you think constitutes “economic development”. I can think of some instances where versions of “economic development” never got off the ground, such as an LNG plant, a shopping mall, choo-choo schemes, some McMansions, some pot farms, some housing complex sprawl into at ag lands.

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago
Reply to  Sigh

“vocal selfish minority”

Sigh
Guest
Sigh
1 year ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

Right. I’m just glad they never got many of their developmental schemes off the ground.

Sigh
Guest
Sigh
1 year ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

“Talented professionals don’t want to take the risk for their families and careers that a vocal selfish minority”
Curious, and to be sure, who in your view are the “a vocal selfish minority”?

Missing Humboldt
Guest
Missing Humboldt
1 year ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

Social and economy issues are not just a Humboldt issue. We recently moved from Humboldt to an affluent area in central California, and ALL the same issues that you speak of are here as well. You know what’s different? The people in Humboldt are the best ! Miss it daily ❤️

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago

Agree with you about the people in Humboldt. The word I use is cordial to describe our community. It’s why it makes me sad when projects like the fish farm or windmills or housing come up and the no growth zombies come out of their caves in a frenzy to nitpick these projects to death.

Guest
Guest
Guest
1 year ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

If people had only nitpicking when the rail service from trolley to freight was turned into a highway system, partly because the Goodyear Tire company had a lot of lobbyists.

deadmanwalkingwmd
Member
deadmanwalkingwmd
1 year ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

Been to Stockton or San Bernardino lately?

THC
Member
THC
1 year ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

I say ha again, 30% of welfare recipients live in California, hundreds of thousands of people are moving out of California every year. California has some of the strictest building codes in the United States which tack on close to if not over 40% more cost to every house that’s built..

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago
Reply to  THC

Actually, contrary to what lkjcc says, without social services our region would have the second highest poverty rate in the state. I don’t consider being a successful welfare region to be success when we’ve got smart people and plenty of opportunities for decades to come. For example, let’s get windmill electricity down to South Humboldt to build a big regional hospital, power up the CO-OPs, and jump start a South County renaissance. Maybe even environmentalists could lobby for a non-carbon future in South Humboldt.

A.I. lives matter
Guest
A.I. lives matter
1 year ago
Reply to  THC

Welfare Recipients by State 2023

New Mexico – 21,067 per 100k.
West Virginia – 17,309 per 100k.
Louisiana – 17,136 per 100k.
Mississippi – 14,884 per 100k.
Oklahoma – 14,412 per 100k.
Alabama – 14,100 per 100k.
Illinois – 13,890 per 100k.
Oregon – 13,399 per 100k.

Here are PER CAPITA rates. California doesn’t make the top 8
Your 30%stuff is made up. California also has a large portion of the County’s population. NY, and CA together are home to over 1/5th of the total population. So CA might have a greater TOTAL number of alot of things: cars, miles of highway, trees, homeless, millionaires…

Guest
Guest
Guest
1 year ago

Define welfare first.

percentage-of-pop-enrolled-in-medicaid-chip.png
Guest
Guest
Guest
1 year ago
Reply to  Guest

Or

figure5_0.png
A.I. lives matter
Guest
A.I. lives matter
1 year ago
Reply to  THC

K.first article says CA has 30%of the Nation’s HOMELESS. Not welfare. And like I pointed out they’re using TOTALS instead if RATES to get you attention with a bigger number in the headline. Obviously CA has a large population.
Then next article is on welfare SPENDING, meaning total amount spent, not percentage of population on welfare.
Third article is about how the “blue state”ism of CA is sorta false, and we have 1/5 of our citizens living under the poverty line. They use the 1/3 figure, referring to CAs total share of the Nation’s welfare recipients. But note, that we have a lower PER CAPITA rate than at least eight other states. More research needed: is the “poverty level” the same in CA and Mississippi?

A.I. lives matter
Guest
A.I. lives matter
1 year ago
Reply to  THC

Poverty rates are set federally, so it might be more difficult to live in CA on the same income as in’Ol Miss…
But here is from the census bureau:

Poverty rates per capita 2021
Mississippi 18.1%
Louisiana 17.3%
New Mexico 16.7%
Arkansas 15.1%
West Virginia 15%
Kentucky 14.6%
Alabama 14.5%
District of Columbia 14.4%
South Carolina 14%
Oklahoma 13.8%
Georgia 13.1%
Texas 12.9%
North Carolina 12.8%
So CAs again, not on the list. Perhaps the 3rd article had to stretch a bit to arrive at their “1/5” number (20%,) I’m guessing by making up a population of undocumentarians and assuming they are all living under the poverty line.

THC
Member
THC
1 year ago

There are several ways to judge the poverty rate, when you factor in the cost of living California has the highest poverty rate in the nation. Why wouldn’t you factor in the cost of living? After all Most states that have a lower cost of living also have lower wages.

poverty1-768x1423.png
Oh Boy!
Member
Oh Boy!
11 months ago
Reply to  THC

You’re a fool.
Illinois, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee have the most welfare recipients.
Although California has the highest total public welfare expenditures, it’s not one of the states that spends the most on welfare per capita. The following 10 states that spend more on welfare also tend to have high living costs.
10. Kentucky
Welfare spending per capita: $2,517
Total public welfare expenditures: $11.21 billion
The poverty rate in Kentucky is 14.8 percent — tied for the seventh-highest of all the states — which could account for its high welfare spending per capita.

9. Oregon
Welfare spending per capita: $2,520
Total public welfare expenditures: $10.44 billion
Although Oregon spends a lot on welfare compared to other states, it’s not one of the best states for poor Americans, a separate GOBankingRates study found. This is due to an overall high cost of living, high crime rates and a lack of affordable housing.

8. Maine
Welfare spending per capita: $2,530
Total public welfare expenditures: $3.38 billion
Maine is one of the states that spends the most on welfare per capita. However, it’s among the top 15 states with the lowest total public welfare expenditures.

7. Delaware
Welfare spending per capita: $2,544
Total public welfare expenditures: $2.45 billion
The per capita spending in Delaware is among the highest, but the state’s total welfare expenditures are the seventh-lowest of all the states. This is likely because it’s the sixth-least populous state.

6. New Mexico
Welfare spending per capita: $2,741
Total public welfare expenditures: $5.72 billion
It’s not a surprise that New Mexico is one of the states that spends the most on welfare, because it has the third-highest poverty rate in America: 18.2 percent. It’s also one of the worst states to be rich in America because of its high property crime rates and low incomes.

5. Minnesota
Welfare spending per capita: $2,805
Total public welfare expenditures: $15.64 billion
Minnesota is among the top five states that spend the most on welfare per capita, and it’s among the top 15 with the highest total public welfare expenditures.

4. Vermont
Welfare spending per capita: $2,842
Total public welfare expenditures: $1.77 billion
This state is one of the best for poor Americans. Although Vermont’s welfare spending per capita is high, its total welfare spending is the fifth-lowest of all the states. This is likely due to its low population.

3. Massachusetts
Welfare spending per capita: $2,911
Total public welfare expenditures: $19.97 billion
The percentage of Massachusetts households that lived in poverty during 2016-17 is 10.1 percent. This could be because it’s one of the states with the highest cost of living. Massachusetts is the fourth-most expensive state to live in.

2. Alaska
Welfare spending per capita: $3,020
Total public welfare expenditures: $2.23 billion
Because Alaska is one of the least populous states, its total public welfare spending is actually the sixth-lowest of all the states — even though its spending per capita is the No. 2 highest.

1. New York
Welfare spending per capita: $3,305
Total public welfare expenditures: $19.85 billion
Considering the fact that residents need to make nearly $100,000 to live comfortably in one of the biggest cities in New York, it’s no surprise this state’s public welfare expenditures are so high. New York has the fifth-highest cost of living in the country.

Oh Boy!
Member
Oh Boy!
11 months ago
Reply to  Ariolimax

40% of Californians are “poor enough” to qualify. I’d put dollars against doughnuts and guess that Humboldt county has a slightly higher number than the state as a whole.

deadmanwalkingwmd
Member
deadmanwalkingwmd
1 year ago
Reply to  Tim

Civilization ain’t so wonderful either.

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago

Until you consider the alternative.

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary

So true. So many pluses, too many minuses.

THC
Member
THC
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary

Ha, have you seen the streets in LA or San Francisco recently?

Corinna Kitchen
Guest
Corinna Kitchen
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary

This woman has been on meth for the last 30 years that I know of

Guest
Guest
Guest
1 year ago

She’s so Nasty looking. Yuck
tweeker!

Gary Whittaker
Guest
Gary Whittaker
1 year ago
Reply to  Guest

We sure don’t want another one of these in del Norte.

Nelson
Guest
Nelson
1 year ago
Reply to  Guest

She’s kind of methy

Jim Dogger
Guest
Jim Dogger
1 year ago
Reply to  Nelson

Nah she’s still got a layer of fat on her face and not enough wrinkles. Unless she’s got the old black toothed grin, I’d guess more of a drunkard.

Cetan Bluesky
Guest
Cetan Bluesky
1 year ago

Berkeley forgot her first lesson from kindergarten. What goes around eventually comes around.

Al L Ivesmatr
Guest
Al L Ivesmatr
1 year ago

Another unhappy Biden voter raging against the machine. Food stamps and welfare came late this month. Oakie frickin liberals exported from the Deep South.

Non-Native
Guest
Non-Native
1 year ago
Reply to  Al L Ivesmatr

It’s “Okie” if you are referring to someone from Oklahoma. It’s not “Oaklahoma”. It’s still “Okie” even if you are using it as a more generic slur. But do enlighten us, who are these deep South liberals you are referring to? It’s my understanding that the majority of the deep South is pretty red.

Jim Dogger
Guest
Jim Dogger
1 year ago
Reply to  Non-Native

We don’t smoke marijuana in Muskogee.

Non-Native
Guest
Non-Native
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Dogger

We don’t take our trips on LSD…

Dogbiter
Guest
Dogbiter
1 year ago
Reply to  Al L Ivesmatr

The only OAK involved in Okie is the kind your head is constructed from.

A.I. lives matter
Guest
A.I. lives matter
1 year ago
Reply to  Al L Ivesmatr

Liberal open border collie mix of the country is trans Obama and the road from the other day Biden doesn’t have a good job representing the world because of the country law! Bat soup groups of people who claim that this proposal will be great.

Neverlayup
Guest
Neverlayup
1 year ago
Reply to  Al L Ivesmatr

Well said ! Biden voters are brain dead!

Guest
Guest
Guest
1 year ago

Ariolsmax tells the truth!!

deadmanwalkingwmd
Member
deadmanwalkingwmd
1 year ago
Reply to  Guest

Nah, she’s just has her own opinion.

Ariolimax
Member
Ariolimax
1 year ago

So just what do you propose to improve Humboldt’s economy, we’re all listening?

Dave Kirby
Member
1 year ago

Between 1939 and 1941 the German military consumed something on the order of 35 million meth tabs. That’s what put the Blitz in Blitzkrieg.

THC
Member
THC
1 year ago
Reply to  Dave Kirby

Yeah but they had the good s*** ,not this watered down solvent derivative Sudafed crap that’s spiked with fentanyl.

pcwindhamD
Member
pcwindham
1 year ago
Reply to  THC

True that. P2P meth is a far cry from pharmaceutical.

TDog
Guest
TDog
1 year ago

looks like yet another Koenig. Koenigs only start Sh!t with people that can’t defend themselves, like kids and people half their size. Lol………… pathetic!

pcwindhamD
Member
pcwindham
1 year ago

This reminds me of Hannah Hayhurst. Sad for the young woman.