Jurors in San Francisco delivered a mixed verdict Thursday in the trial of a man accused of killing an elderly man in 2021, finding him guilty of involuntary manslaughter but not guilty of murder. Defendant Antoine Watson was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of 84-year-old Vi cha Ratanapakdee. The jury’s mixed verdict found Watson not guilty of first- and second-degree murder.  Watson, 24, was also charged with assault and elder abuse. The jury found him guilty of assault but not guilty of elder abuse. Watson’s mother, who testified in her son’s defense, was in court for the verdict. She did not comment on the verdict. The death of Ratanapakdee, also known as “Grandpa Vicha,” became a flashpoint in the push to stop Asian hate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Monthanus Ratanapakdee, the daughter of the victim, discussed the outcome with reporters after court convened for the day. “Our family is grieving and even disappointed and painful,” she said. “But me, as a daughter, I can speak for my father. And I’m going to commit to working for our community for dignity and for public safety in San Francisco.” The court will reconvene in a few days for sentencing. In California, the maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter is four years and probation. Watson has spent five years in custody while waiting for the trial. San Francisco Jan 13 ‘Grandpa Vicha' murder case: Trial winds down with closing arguments San Francisco Jan 7 ‘Grandpa Vicha' murder case: Defendant grilled during cross-examination San Francisco Jan 6 ‘Grandpa Vicha' murder case: Defendant says he was in a haze of confusion and anger Deliberations started Thursday morning, a day after closing arguments concluded. Watson testified a week ago that he was in a haze of confusion and anger. He claimed he didn’t know Ratanapakdee was Asian or elderly at the time of the unprovoked attack. San Francisco Assistant District Attorney Dane Reinstedt began the prosecution’s closing arguments on Tuesday by talking to the jury about the legal definition of murder and why prosecutors argue that’s the charge that fits this crime. Both sides agreed Watson killed Ratanapakdee. Watson even admitted to it on the stand. Investigators pieced together several neighborhood security camera videos showing him sprinting down the street from his parked car and then directly at Ratanapakdee. What the jury had to decide was if Watson maliciously attacked Ratanapakdee and also knew or should have known he could seriously harm or kill him. During trial, a neighbor testified hearing Watson yell “What are you [expletive] looking at?” in the moments before running at Ratanapakdee. Watson testified that he felt Ratanapakdee was judging him just before the attack. Reinstedt told jurors that indicated malice toward Ratanapakdee. One of the prosecution’s expert witnesses estimated Watson was running 12 mph when he collided with Ratanapakdee. Reinstedt argued that showed Watson’s intention to cause harm. Defense Attorney Anita Nabha began her closing statement by telling jurors the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. She said testimony from two of the prosecutions’ own witnesses describe Watson’s erratic behavior before and after the attack. Nabha argued her client did not intend to kill Ratanapakdee and didn’t maliciously target him. The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office sent a statement that reads: “Today, Mr. Watson was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and assault with force likely to cause injury with the allegations that the victim was elderly and that injury caused death found true. The jury is still empaneled at this time and we must limit our remarks. The jury will return on January 26, 2026, to hear arguments on aggravating factors in this case. Once the trial on aggravating factors is concluded, sentencing will be scheduled. Sentencing is at the discretion of the court.” ...read more read less