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. Faris Jo
#26-BT-0034
A decision was reached in the above case on the 13th day of June, 2026.
Facts
The facts of the case are as follows:
- Police were notified of an ATM alarm.
- A police air unit observed a vehicle towing the ATM in the vicinity of the dam.
- The individual detached the ATM and attempted to evade police vehicles both on and off-road.
- The individual is noted leaving said vehicle, a Kamacho, hopping on a Shinobi at Benny's Motor Works.
- The same individual, the defendant, was pursued again and ultimately caught at the docks.
Arguments From Either Side
The prosecution argues that the evidence shows an individual was operating the vehicles listed in the arrest report. They argue that the defendant could not have legally acquired this ATM. They believe the pursuit originated in the belief that the defendant was ultimately knowingly taking the ATM, and the evidence shows a clear chain of events pinpointing the defendant's involvement. They argue the defense's claims about the owners of the vehicles not being mentioned are irrelevant. They state that it is not mentioned that AIR ever lost visual, and emphasize that ground units also maintained visual.
The defense argues that AIR may have lost the vehicle because the exact location on the dam where they saw it was not noted. They argue that the defendant was not mentioned in the arrest report and that the Kamacho was not included in the "Involved Vehicles" section. They believe there is insufficient information, as someone may have switched places before the defendant was spotted. They state there is no hard evidence linking the defendant to the ATM, as no physical evidence tying the suspect to the crime was recovered on his person. They also argue there is no proof of how much was stolen or of the damages incurred.
Verdict
Reviewing the evidence submitted to the court, the timeline of events submitted is straightforward. Police air support, responding to a call about a stolen ATM, established visual contact with a Kamacho towing the machine, observed an individual exit the vehicle and detach the ATM. They then re-entered the vehicle and drove away, evading ground vehicles that pursued shortly thereafter. The arrest report establishes that visual contact with the vehicle and the defendant was maintained from the defendant's towing of the ATM to their eventual capture at the docks.
The Court turns to the defense’s argument that certain formatting irregularities in the submitted arrest report undermine the prosecution's evidence. The Court finds that minor technical defects in a police narrative do not impair the integrity of the underlying evidence, especially given the narrative's detail.
The defense contends that the prosecution has failed to establish the defendant’s ownership or relation to either the Kamacho or the Shinobi. Under the current charge, the prosecution is not required to prove this, as the core issue is whether the defendant exercised control of the vehicle to carry the ATM away and then evade.
The Court addresses the argument that taking property from a bank fails to satisfy the requirement of taking property "of another person." The Court has interpreted the word "person" as broadly defined, with the intent, in these circumstances, to include entities such as corporations and commercial businesses. An ATM is bank property; any unlawful possession of it constitutes the intent behind "taking the property of another person without consent."
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of GF10 - Grand Theft, I find the defendant, Faris Jo, guilty.
So Ordered,
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 -
[email protected]
