Judge Dismissed Felony Poisoning Conviction of David Xu
A judge approved the dismissal of the conviction after David Xu completed the terms of his probation.
Updated on Oct. 13, 2026 in Criminal Justice
A court has dismissed the felony poisoning conviction against David Xu following his completion of a probation sentence. The ruling comes years after Xu pleaded guilty to poisoning the water supply of a workplace colleague.
Why it matters
Under California law, a judge is required to dismiss a poisoning complaint if the defendant successfully fulfills all conditions of their court-ordered probation. The decision marks the formal conclusion of the legal proceedings despite ongoing concerns from the victim regarding her health.
The court approved the petition to dismiss the felony conviction after David Xu served a two-year probation sentence. Xu was initially released on $2 million bail in 2019 following his arrest.
The players
David Xu
He is the individual who pleaded guilty to felony poisoning after being recorded tampering with a coworker's water bottle.
Rong Yuan
She is the victim of the poisoning incident who reported experiencing significant health issues following the exposure.
The details
David Xu was caught on camera on March 4, 2019, pouring a cadmium-based substance into a water bottle belonging to Rong Yuan at her Berkeley workplace. Water samples from the bottle contained cadmium levels that exceeded national safety limits, though defense experts argued it was unlikely to cause permanent health damage.
Timeline
February 2017: Rong Yuan began experiencing symptoms of cadmium poisoning.
March 4, 2019: David Xu was recorded on camera poisoning the victim's water.
2023: David Xu accepted a plea deal for felony poisoning.
September 2025: The father of the victim died.
October 12, 2026: A judge approved the petition to dismiss the felony conviction.
Legal Context
This dismissal follows standard procedure under California law, which mandates that a judge must vacate a conviction once a defendant completes their probation. Such outcomes often draw scrutiny in cases involving violent or health-related crimes where victims feel the judicial outcome lacks sufficient severity.
Residents may see this case as a point of concern regarding how poisoning incidents are processed through the Alameda County court system. The dismissal highlights the specific legal requirements judges must follow when a defendant successfully completes their court-mandated probation.
The takeaway
This case illustrates how statutory requirements can lead to the dismissal of serious charges regardless of public or victim sentiment. Understanding the distinction between a guilty plea and the finality of a conviction dismissal is essential for navigating the local justice system.
Further reading
For more information on legal procedures, visit Berkeley Criminal Justice.
