State of San Andreas v David Vespucci

[Luna McMillan]

Appellant Name: David Vespucci
Appellant Attorney(s): Luna McMillan, Jaz Owens

Trial Docket Number: #25-CM-0040
Presiding Trial Judge: Honourable Judge Hugh R. Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [X] Before Verdict
  [ ] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [X] Motion to be overturned
  [X] Errors in the trials procedure
  [X] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
  [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence

Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)

• Defense filed a motion to suppress on the 25th of October, 2025. Judge Allgood denied all the motions and stated that a reason underseal but we cannot state it here. The underseal is going to be in the Private Workroom 6. Here is a case where a judge granted suppression due to evidence: #24-CM-0078 State of San Andreas v. Alistair Kon (Vespucci) There has been many cases where relevance was taken as a reason for suppression.

[Joseph Horton]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

SUMMARY DISMISSAL

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci

A Summary Dismissal was entered in the above appeal on the 30th day of November, 2025.

The Court of Appeals has reviewed the circumstances of the appeal filed in the case #25-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci. The appellant has stated that several motions filed under seal were unjustly denied and highlighted previous precedent to support their case.

The Court of Appeals has reviewed the presiding judge's Court Decision for matters of suppression. The Defense has argued that multiple exhibits lack relevance, as detailed in the Motion to Suppress filed on the public docket on the 25th of October, 2025, and on the Sealed Docket for the same day.

When a judge rules on the admissibility of evidence before trial, the threshold for relevancy is intentionally very low. Evidence is considered relevant if it has any tendency, even slight, to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without that evidence.

As this threshold is minimal, the judge is not weighing credibility, persuasiveness, or strength at this stage. Those are questions of weight, which are reserved for the fact-finder at trial. Therefore, the presiding judge ruled correctly when they stated that the arguments provided by the defense were more directed towards the sufficiency of evidence in relation to the charges than the relevancy.

While reviewing the case, the Court of Appeals notes that the presiding judge ruled on exhibit #5, stating, "The Court did not see any arguments under seal for this exhibit. Therefore, the Court will deny suppression of this exhibit." The Court of Appeals notes that the Defendant filed the motion to suppress themselves directly in the sealed room on the 1st day of September, 2025.

In the Court of Appeals, our role is not to rule on the motion, but to review the actions, reasoning, and rulings of the trial court. In this case, the underlying concern is that the trial judge did not address or acknowledge the motion at all. The focus for the Court of Appeals should be whether that omission constituted error and whether it affected the outcome, rather than whether the suppression argument is persuasive on its face. The Court of Appeals acknowledges that the omission of the review of Exhibit #5 was an error from the presiding judge, but it has not risen to the level where the omission would impact the outcome of the evidence; however, this does not prevent the Defense from bringing up their arguments during trial for this exhibit.

It is with these considerations that the Court of Appeals will be summarily dismissing this appeal.

(( As has been noted by Judge Allgood in the underseal Court Decision, other exhibits are being removed based on an admin decision, so these will not be referenced ICly in this appeal decision. ))

So ordered,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 — [email protected]