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. Lilliana Hirano
#26-CM-0036
A decision was reached in the above case on the 21st day of May, 2026.
Facts
Arrest 1 - LSPD
- The defendant was found with their car stalled by Officer Mendoza and fellow law enforcement after having robbed an ATM and attempting to evade.
- Officers identified her by ID.
- The defendant than ran on foot and escaped.
- The defendant was apprehended at impound.
Arrest 2 - LSSD
- Defendant was found at the scene of an ATM that had been disconnected from it's original location.
- Defendant was spotted smashing said ATM.
- Defendant was identified via her ID.
- Defendant then tackled the LSSD Deputy and punched him.
- Defendant ran away on foot into her friends vehicle and got away.
Arrest 3 - LSPD
- Defendant was seen at the sight of an ATM robbery call.
- Defendant was spotted without a mask, which led to their identification by the attending officers.
- Defendant proceeded to evade after officers attempted to investigate the situation.
Arguments Made at Trial
The Defense argued that the State failed to sufficiently establish the defendant’s direct involvement and identification in the alleged ATM robberies, emphasizing that multiple reports lacked detail regarding how the defendant was identified, whether she had been properly informed she was under arrest, and whether certain charges were supported by the underlying facts. The Defense further contended that the evidence only placed the defendant near the scenes rather than actively committing the thefts, questioned whether the recovered money could definitively be tied to the ATMs, and argued that several charges appeared duplicative or improperly stacked, particularly the simultaneous use of Grand Theft and Receiving Stolen Property arising from the same conduct.
The Prosecution argued that the totality of the evidence established the defendant’s involvement in the ATM robberies through repeated law enforcement encounters, witness observations, and the defendant’s evasive actions upon police arrival. The State maintained that officers observed the defendant in close proximity to the targeted ATMs, including at least one instance where the defendant was allegedly seen actively damaging an ATM, and argued that the discovery of packed currency within the vehicle reasonably connected the defendant to the thefts. The Prosecution further asserted that the separate reports reflected multiple encounters by different agencies investigating related criminal conduct occurring throughout the same series of events.
Verdict
The court wants to note that the trial started by the court questioning whether both parties were willing to move forward in consideration of all 15 charges that were incurred that day by the defendant. Neither party objected, and the courts ruled to consider all charges due to the defendants initially entered plea of not guilty upon arrest.
The court will begin by reviewing the evidence and whether or not it meets the standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges alleged. The court agrees with the defense in their statement that exhibit 2 and exhibit 6 appear to be the same. After further review, the court determines that there is no difference between the narratives. Meaning that while both arrest reports contain proof of crime, the court will only be considering one as enough for a reasonable person to find the defendant guilty. Absent accompanying evidence, the court can only find the narrative applies to a singular instance and not multiple instances.
The court also agrees with the defense that office Larson appears to not be noted within any documentation aside from the singular instance (Exhibit #5) where he is noted as being a part of 2 of the 3 placed charges. Given the limited information provided to the courts, the inability to determine how the defendant was visually identified be it with or without a mask, and the lack of accurate documentation for the arrest provided to the courts, we cannot accurately determine whether the defendant committed these actions. In that determination, the court must side with the defense.
In regards to exhibits 3 and 4, the court notes the overlap between the charges GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property and GF10 - Grand Theft. The court also notes the marked bills and cash found in the defendants vehicle with the additional context of the ATM vandalism witnessed by law enforcement. That being said, the court finds there to be enough total cash found to allow for the charge of Grand Theft finding it to be the greater and more accurate charge for the circumstance in lieu of and not in addition to the charge of GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property.
Finally, the court goes back to the statement from exhibit 1 when reviewing the final charges: "She robbed an ATM and evaded, 2 times the second time she was caught when her vehicle stalled, we got her ID and then she ran and got away on foot". The court interprets this passage to mean the defendant was spotted robbing and subsequently evading from officers, while the court may not be able to determine how the individual was identified at the first robbery, the court can determine that after the second robbery the defendant was apprehended after stalling on an object. She was then officially identified by law enforcement prior to running on foot.
She was eventually apprehended at the impound lot. While it is possible that she ran on foot, the court cannot determine that based on the facts presented. The court can only find that she went onto the roof, not that she did this in an attempt to flee law enforcement as no narrative was presented. An individual must be aware of impending arrest to be considered resisting on foot or in a similar nature.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of GM02 - Battery of a Government Employee, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, guilty.
- On the count of GM04 - Resisting Arrest, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, guilty.
- On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, guilty.
- On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, guilty.
- On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, guilty.
- On the count of GF10 - Grand Theft, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, guilty.
- On the count of GF10 - Grand Theft, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, guilty.
- On the count of GF10 - Grand Theft, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, guilty.
- On the count of GM04 - Resisting Arrest, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, not guilty.
- On the count of GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, not guilty.
- On the count of GM08 - Vandalism, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, not guilty.
- On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, not guilty.
- On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, not guilty.
- On the count of GF10 - Grand Theft, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, not guilty.
- On the count of GF10 - Grand Theft, I find the defendant, Lilliana Hirano, not 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 $114,000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.
So Ordered,
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 -
[email protected]
