San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
The State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
#25-CM-0039
A decision was reached in the above case on the 10th day of January, 2026.
PRE-TRIAL MOTION(S)
- Motion: Amend
Filed By: Prosecution
Decision: Accepted
Reasoning: The State has requested to drop the charges of NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines and GF05 - Extortion of a Government Employee as they do not believe the evidence supports such. The Defense did not object. As the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the Court finds no issue granting the motion.
The combined fines for NM08 & GF05 (+ government employee modifier) total $4,500 and the combined sentence for these charges is 77 months which the Court values as $15,400 in restitution, for a total of $19,900 for the amendment of these two charges.
Facts
On the 18th of August, 2024, Sofia Falcone was incarcerated at the Bolingbroke Peniteary, and was aided in escaping from such location by a group of individuals dressed in SADOC CERT gear, and via a SADOC Kamacho.
During review of the evidence, the Court did review a sealed exhibit wherein the Defendant was covertly recorded admitting to their involvement in the prison break. The admission also follows the facts of the case as presented by the Prosecution. A DOC guard was kidnapped, taken to location where their security credentials were stolen. These credentials were then used to make entry into DOC where CERT uniforms were stolen, as well as a Kamacho. Once the credentials, uniforms, and vehicle were secured, the Defendant and several individuals returned to the prison and drove Ms. Falcone out the front gates under the guise of deception.
After their release, Ms. Falcone went on to inflict great terror on the citizens of San Andreas, killing multiple others, before their re-capture and execution.
Arguments Made at Trial
The Prosecution argued via the presentation of evidence and arguments that the Defendant took Lt. Vito Saint hostage while at DOC, took Lt. Saint to the residence of 10 Mirror Park Blvd where he was stripped of his security credentials, which were then used by the Defendant to regain access to DOC, where they obtained CERT gear and a DOC Kamacho. These items were then taken back to where Lt. Vito was held hostage, other conspirators left with the Defendant, and Sofia Falcone (a serial murderer) was broken out of prison. She then went on to murder numerous other innocent civilians. The Prosecution argued their case to be supported by the admission of guilt from the Defendant (recorded by a Confidential Informant), CCTV, phone calls between the Defendant and other conspirators, and the witness statement of Lt. Saint, including positive identification of the Defendant as the person who kidnapped them.
The Defense argued that much of the State's case was speculative evidence, highlighting perceived discrepancies of the incident date from Lt. Saint's witness statement and the date of the prison break, the evidence captured on CobbBlog showing masked and therefore unidentifiable individuals assisting in Ms. Falcone's breakout, and the recording of the Defendant speaking with a confidential informant admitting to planning and executing the breakout of Ms. Falcone to be fabricated in response to an unidentified person offering an unknown sum of money for him to admit to his involvement. The Defense points to the fact this recording was made (July 2025) after facts of how Ms. Falcone had already been released on CobbBlog in August 2024, and therefore he was told to just follow that script.
Verdict
As to the charges faced by the Defendant, the Court must consider all charges individually and weigh whether the evidence supports a conviction for the charge, and whether the Prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt the charge. Following the accepted motion to amend, the Defendant faces the following charges:
- NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
- NM06 - Trespassing (Gov. Emp.)
- GF21 - Prison Break
- GF11 - Grand Theft Auto (Gov. Emp.)
- GF14 - False Impersonation (Gov. Emp.)
- SF04 - Kidnapping (Gov. Emp.)
- SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
- GF10 - Grand Theft (Gov. Emp.)
- GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
The Court will begin with GF-21 - prison break. The Court believes the Prosecution has met their burden of proof in proving the Defendant did successfully break into Bolingbrook Penitentiary, which satisfies the elements of GF21. The Court takes special notice of the witness statement from Lt. Saint confirming the Defendant's involvement having seen him unmasked after the Defendant returned to the location where Lt. Saint was held in captivity after being previously kidnapped from the front desk of DOC with the duffle bags containing the CERT gear. This satisfies the elements of SF04 - Kidnapping. The Defense did introduce a level of doubt on the admission made by the Defendant to the CI, however, the Court believes the statement from Lt. Saint, alone, voids that doubt of reasonableness. As Ms. Falcone was extracted from DOC under the guise of being legitimately transported off the SADOC grounds by CERT operatives, the Court believes the Prosecution has met their burden in proving the Defendant impersonated a CERT operative in order to gain a benefit, meeting the elements of GF14.
For GF11 - Grand Theft Auto (Gov. Emp.), the Court does believe the Prosecution has met their burden of proof in proving the Defendant did take a vehicle, owned by SADOC, without consent.
For GF10 - Grand Theft (Gov. Emp.), the Court does believe the Prosecution has met their burden of proof in proving the Defendant did take property of another person valued over $5,000 without consent, namely the CERT gear and batons. While the Defense sought to introduce doubt on the value of these items, the Prosecution pointed to the fact at least 4 sets of this gear had been stolen, and pointed to the fact 4 sets of any item in any clothing store within San Andreas would easily exceed $5,000. The Court notes this argument to be persuasive, and finds the Prosecution has met the burden in proving these items stolen and their value to exceed $5,000. The Prosecution also met the burden of proving GM25, given these items were not just stolen, but later unlawfully using this government equipment.
Considering all of the above, the Court does also find the Prosecution has met their burden for NM03 in proving the Defendant worked with two or more people to do something illegal, namely prison break. This is also supported by Lt. Saint's statement, wherein Lt. Saint specifically named at least three people who were involved and positively identified as involved.
For the charge of NM06 - Trespassing, the Defense argued this charge to be a lesser included of GF21 - Prison Break. As noted above, the Court believes the Defendant did break into the prison, which is a government property, and was in areas of such facility without lawful permission. Evaluating the Defense claim of this being a lesser include offense, the Court agrees. Under the facts of this
specific case, it would not be possible for this prison break to occur following the facts of this case without also engaging in trespassing. As noted, this only applies to this specific case, as the Court is sure there are other ways to engage in GF21 - Prison Break than how it occurred in this instance which would not involve an offender trespassing, specifically the sections of GF21 pertaining to a person who is already incarcerated and breaks out - this would not require trespassing as that person was already permitted to be on the premises when they broke out. Therefore, the Court is not explicitly stating NM06 is directly a lesser included offense of GF21, but in this instance it was; a prison break preceded by trespassing and is explicitly contained within the specific element breached in GF21 "Every person or persons who attempt to or successfully breaks into any form of containment facilities, such as county jail, city jail or prison,..."
For SF01, the Defense argues the Prosecution has not proven the prison break was intended to influence policy of the government. The Court notes there are four prongs of the SF01 - Domestic Terrorism code. (1) Domestic Terrorism relates to the use of "extreme violent activit(ies)",
and was intended to (2) intimidate or coerce civilians,
or (3) influence government policy through intimidation or coercion,
or (4) affect government conduct through mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. The Court orients itself to the facts of this case prior to considering the three prongs of the code; whether the prison break or any of the facts related constituted an extremely violent activity. The Court does believe this act, namely the kidnapping of Lt. Saint at gunpoint to be an extremely violent activity. Now whether these acts were intended to intimidate or coerce civilians, policy of government, or the conduct of government. The Court believes none of these apply. While the Court does acknowledge the end-result of breaking Ms. Falcone out of prison, the Court does not believe the Prosecution has proven these actions to be the means to an end - in other words, the Prosecution failed to prove the Defendant and the co-conspirators did these acts to use the eventual killings carried out by Ms. Falcone to intimidate or coerce civilians, policy of government, or the conduct of government.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, guilty.
- On the count of NM06 - Trespassing (Gov. Emp.), I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, not guilty.
- On the count of GF21 - Prison Break, I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, guilty.
- On the count of GF11 - Grand Theft Auto (Gov. Emp.), I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, guilty.
- On the count of GF14 - False Impersonation (Gov. Emp.), I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, guilty.
- On the count of SF04 - Kidnapping, I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, guilty.
- On the count of SF01 - Domestic Terrorism, I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, not guilty.
- On the count of GF10 - Grand Theft (Gov. Emp.), I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, guilty.
- On the count of GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment, I find the defendant, Nathaniel Luceran, guilty.
The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $65,550 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 -
[email protected]
