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. Cody Mackey
#26-CM-0001
A decision was reached in the above case on the 28th day of June, 2026.
Facts
- A bank robbery occurred on the 12th of January, 2025.
- The defendant was present and negotiated with officers the release of said hostage.
- The defendant initially fled in a Jugular near LSIA.
- The defendant swam until they reached and walked around on the tarmac of LSIA.
- The defendant was picked up by an associate and continued to flee before colliding with officers.
Arguments Made at Trial
The defense argued the defendant or alleged individual negotiating with officers could have been any individual as no identification was provided at the time and the defendant received the charge of face concealment, meaning they must have had a mask on at the time of negotiations. They went on to state the defendant could have been a hostage in the bank and was simply doing the bidding of the hostage taker. Defense also noted here was no CCTV of the bank for comparison and no cash found on the defendant. Finally they called out that the defendant was on foot at the airport, and did not disrupt any active aircraft situations.
Prosecution argues that the individual with the weapon isn't the only individual participating in the hostage taking. Stating that all individuals that participated in the robbery were complicit in the robbery/hostage taking. They also argued that the defendant was arrested with a mask, which gave officers the ability to compare the arrested individual to the individual in the bank speaking during the hostage negotiations. Lastly, they stated the defendant led police to the airport during their pursuit, which inherently disrupted airport operations in their pursuit of him.
Verdict
The court would like to note that during the pre-trial hearing the camera footage from exhibit #3 was removed from the record. This was due to the footage being corrupted. (( No proof of RP ))
The court wants to note in writing their ruling on an objection from the defense in regards to the role of the defendant in the bank robbery, the court ruled that due to the nature of negotiation requiring the individual to be present, speaking, and in front of officers at the time, as well as the presence of a mask, coupled with the identification of the individual by the officer that was on scene, the court can conclude as a reasonable fact finder that the individual was properly identified by the arresting officer as noted in his witness statement (Exhibit #4:Witness Statement - Officer Percy Heines).
The court also wants to note the prior ruling by Judge Antonio McFornell in #24-CM-0018, State of San Andreas v. John Chapel (Pauls).
- "The prosecution has presented evidence consisting mainly of an arrest report and a witness statement. These two pieces of evidence, or their authors, were not impeached by the defense, and the prosecution correctly argued that the Court could not conclude that these do not contain truthful statements without finding their authors guilty of perjury, contempt of court, among others."
It is with that precedence, that the court finds the series of events presented by the prosecution to be factual. There was no noted time where police had lost sight of the individuals that fled the bank robbery, and therefore the court can only conclude that the defendant took part in and negotiated with officers during the bank robbery. The court notes that partially during this time the defendant was wearing a mask and possessed one at the time he was arrested.
Additionally, the prosecution made an argument that the sheer use of LSIA during a pursuit could lead to the charge of AM04 - Disrupting Airport/Aircraft Operations. While the court does not feel this blanket use would work in all cases, in the context of this case the court believes that the use of LSIA to flee an active pursuit, with consideration of an airship active in the area as noted by the police helicopter, is enough to allow for the charge.
However the court is not persuaded that the charge NM03 - Unlawful Assembly is applicable in this context, as the charge SF07 - Bank Robbery assumes one or more individuals will be participating in the illegal act. The lesser included offense doctrine is therefore applied, as one cannot exist without the other occurring simultaneously.
It is with the above considerations that the court issues the following verdict:
- On the count of GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I find the defendant, Cody Mackey, guilty.
- On the count of AM04 - Disrupting Airport/Aircraft Operations, I find the defendant, Cody Mackey, guilty.
- On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Cody Mackey, guilty.
- On the count of SF07 - Bank Robbery, I find the defendant, Cody Mackey, guilty.
- On the count of SF09 - False Imprisonment of a Hostage, I find the defendant, Cody Mackey, guilty.
- On the count of NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, Cody Mackey, 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 $6,500 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]
