San Andreas Judicial Branch
Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Diana Butler
#25-AP-0002
A decision was reached in the above case on the 27th day of December, 2025.
The court will review each charge individually beginning with WM03 – Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications, moving on to GF20 – Possession of Human Body Tissue, and DM04 – Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed. The Superior Court ruled in their verdict on the 21st day of June, 2025.
REVIEWING WM03
The Prosecution argued that WM03 criminalizes possession or use of weapon modifications when they are used in the commission of a crime or when the defendant is charged with a weapons felony. The Prosecution maintained that possession and use alone satisfy the statute, and that the Superior Court erred by creating extra elements not present in the law.
The defense argues that the Defendant did not know the firearm was modified and did not apply or purchase the modifications. They stated that the modifications were legally obtained by the firearm’s registered owner. They backed the Superior Court Judges ruling, detailing that WM03 should target individuals who intentionally modify weapons for criminal use, not those who “stumble into” a modified firearm.
The Superior court acknowledged the legislation stated that it applies when used in the commission of a crime, not legally purchasable, or in possession while charged with a weapons felony. The main factor behind the decision of the Superior Court Judge was that the defense "claims that she was handed a weapon which had been stolen from someone inside City Hall" and that "the legislative intent was to cover person(s) who obtain these modifications for use in a crime, not merely stumbling into a weapon with them on it". The Superior Court grounded its ruling in an interpretation of legislative intent, expressing concern that WM03 was designed to target individuals who obtain weapon modifications for criminal use, rather than those who come into incidental possession of a modified firearm.
While legislative intent may be considered where statutory language is ambiguous, it cannot override or narrow the plain language of an unambiguous statute. Meaning, that when a law is vague, intent can be a factor in the verdict, but in laws where the language is specific, a judge cannot apply intent. WM03 explicitly applies when weapon modifications are ‘used in the commission of a crime’ or are in the defendant’s possession during a weapons felony or more accurately for this case,
WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm, as that is a charge the court found the defendant guilty of at trial.
The Court of Appeals notes, the penal code definition does not assign fault to who initially installed, how it was obtained, or the defendant’s subjective intent when considering the modification itself. However, the Court recognizes the concern that criminal liability should not be imposed absent culpable conduct.
Culpable conduct, for purposes of criminal liability, consists of the acts or conditions the legislature has defined as sufficient to trigger responsibility, not additional requirements imposed by judicial interpretation. In other words, a person is responsible when they meet the legal definition of the offense, not only when they meet additional conditions that are not written into the law. However, under WM03, the culpable conduct is not the acquisition of the modification, but the use or possession of a modified weapon in connection with criminal activity.
Notably, the Superior Court found that the modified firearm was used during the commission of the charged offenses, as well as found the defendant guilty of
WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm. These facts satisfy the statutory condition for ‘criminal use’ under WM03, which specifically lists that to qualify for the charge, the given modifications should be:
- Used in the commission of a crime
- Not eligible to be purchased through legal retailers in the State
- If modifications are in their possession at the time one receives "WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm" or any Weapons Felony as defined by the penal code as "WFXX"
Accordingly, while the Superior Court’s concern is understandable, its reliance on perceived legislative intent improperly narrowed the scope of WM03 and constitutes a legal error.
REVIEWING GF20
Moving on to
GF20 – Possession of Human Body Tissue, and starting with the argument from the prosecution that GF20 makes possession of human body tissue illegal unless authorized by a licensed government institution. The Defense argues because the meat was never scientifically tested that the prosecution failed to even prove that the meat was of human origin. Both sides agree no evidence was presented that the defendant had authorization nor was it provided that the defendant did not have authorization to posses human tissue.
In their verdict, the Superior Court highlighted that "there has been no evidence provided to suggest Diana Butler was not authorized to manage, store, or use the human tissue. Therefore, the Court cannot make any substantive conclusions here." The Court of Appeals notes two important factors that the Superior Court did not find: the tissue was not human and the defendant was authorized. Instead, it declined to rule because evidence of non-authorization was not presented.
The Court of Appeals finds that authorization is an affirmative condition in the courts. An
affirmative condition is a specific requirement that must be met to make otherwise illegal conduct lawful, and the responsibility to show that the condition is met rests with the person claiming it. In mathematical terms, if the law says “you cannot do X unless Y,” then Y is an affirmative condition. The Court of Appeals finds the Superior Court misapplied the burden of proof and required the Prosecution to disprove authorization, rather than asking the individual to provide proof of authorization.
REVIEWING DM04
Lastly, the Court of Appeals will review
DM04 – Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed. The Prosecution argued that DM04 applies to the possession of any controlled substance while armed, that marijuana is explicitly classified as a Schedule III controlled substance under DM03, and that DM04 contains no quantity threshold. The Defense argued that the defendant was only in possession of 7 marijuana, and that the low quantity falls under GC06, and not DM03. They stated that since the possession did not rise to a misdemeanor drug offense, it should not satisfy DM04.
The Superior Court agrees with the presented argument from the defense in their verdict. They state "The Defendant was only in possession of 7 marijuana plants. Possession of a controlled substance, specific to marijuana, is for the possession of more than 10 marijuana plants. Therefore, no evidence has been presented that the Defendant was in possession of a controlled substance in addition to being armed.”
To review each of the laws referenced by the Superior Court in order to obtain their verdict, the Court of Appeals must make the distinction between a definitional statue and a charging statue. A
definitional statute establishes classifications or meanings that apply across the legal code, such as what qualifies as a controlled substance. DM03 would be the definitional statue as it answers WHAT cannabis is in the eyes of the law, specifically qualifying it as a controlled substance and making possession of it illegal (possession statue). A
charging statute determines the level of offense, citation, or penalty based on specific facts, such as quantity, context, or severity. Keeping that in mind, the Court of Appeals notes that GC06 is considered to be a charging statue, as it answers HOW cannabis possession is charged when it is the only offense.
Finally, DM04 is considered by the Court of Appeals to be an enhancement statute. An
enhancement statute is a law that increases criminal responsibility or penalties when certain risky or aggravating conditions are present, even if the underlying conduct might otherwise be minor. In the terms of this case, it increases the seriousness of a charge when extra risk factors are present, such as combining drugs with firearms.
The law of DM04 is defined as "possessing any controlled substance, without a valid medical prescription or medical license, whilst armed with any type of firearm". The Court of Appeals notes the law does not reference quantity of the controlled substance, cross-reference GC06, or require the substance to qualify as a misdemeanor-level offense. What the law does do is focus on the risk created by armed possession (enhancement statue), not the severity of the drug offense (charging statue). In their verdict the Superior Court did not find that the marijuana was not present and that the defendant was not armed. Based on the classification of statues and the letter of the law, the Court of Appeals finds that the Superior Court misapplied DM04.
FINDINGS
It is with the above considerations that the Court of Appeals moves to reverse the original ruling by the judge:
- On the count of WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, guilty.
- On the count of DM04 - Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, guilty.
- On the count of GF20 - Possession of Human Body Tissue, I find the defendant, Diana Butler, guilty.
While the Court of Appeals is reversing the decision of the original judge, we will not be fining the defendant or requiring they spend additional time in jail.
So ordered,
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 —
[email protected] 
