#22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Judicial Branch
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Associate Justice Judith Mason,

  • In response to the defense motion for discovery, and as ordered at the hearing on 30/JUN/2022, we the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
    State of San Andreas v. 22-CM-0014
    Assigned Court Case Number: 22-CM-0014
    Requesting Party: Superior Court of San Andreas
    Party Members:
    Exhibit #1: [Source of the Discovery] LSPD
    Type of Discovery: [Deposition/Physical Evidence/Interview/Interrogation/Document Request] Interview
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery Audio recording of an interview with Officer Macquoid

    Sincerely,

    Image
    Hugh R. Allgood
    Attorney General
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Judicial Branch
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Motion for Summary Judgment
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Summary Judgment

Honorable Judith Mason,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.
    State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno
    Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0014
    Requesting Party: Prosecution
    Party Members: Hugh R. Allgood
    Reasoning: The issues in the court rationale for denying the previous motion for summary judgement have been resolved. No dispute of facts.
    Detailed explanation:

    As stated in the court's response to the defense's previous motion for summary judgement, and the response filed by my office, the facts in this case are not disputed. Ms. Mizuno fired a weapon in the direction of a government official, to wit: Officer C. Macquoid. To address some of the reasons for the previous denial of the motion, I wish to explain a few things as rationale for why the court should grant this motion in the favor of the prosecution at this time;
    While there is no dispute on the fact that Ms. Mizuno did discharge a firearm directed towards the cruiser of an on-duty police officer, it still remains unclear where this discharge occurred and how members of the public may have been impacted by the discharge of the firearm.
    what damage had been sustained to the cruiser, indicating exactly where the bullet had entered the vehicle that will soon be presented, further establishing the facts.
    As detailed in the evidence submitted above, Officer Macquoid identified both the location where the shooting occurred (on/under a public highway, La Puerta Freeway, near Weazel News) and the location where the cruiser was struck by bullets (lower portion of the vehicle, on one of the bumper corners).

    In regards to the public endangerment charge, Officer Macquoid advised the defendant fired her handgun from a considerable distance away... A distance (5-10 patrol car lengths away) Officer Macquoid did not believe the defendant could accurately fire a gun from given the emotional state of what just occurred. This is also corroborated by the defendant's statement of intent of shooting at the officer's tires, however, struck the bumper(s) of the patrol vehicle. This is evidence of the lack of precision/accuracy in her gunfire. Given the public location of this shooting, it remains the position of the prosecution that the charge of felony public endangerment is supported.


    Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Image
Hugh R. Allgood
Attorney General
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: NashStalllion

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    I will be scheduling the next proceeding for this case to take place on Saturday, August 6th at 12:30am (( UTC )).

    As we have two additional motions submitted since our last hearing including a Motion for Discovery and a Motion for Summary Judgment - I would ask the defense if they intend to dispute these motions.

    Should the defense still allege that there is a dispute about the facts of this case, I will be denying the Motion for Summary Judgment and the proceeding on Saturday will be a trial, however, if the defense agrees that there is no dispute about the facts of this case, Saturday's proceeding will be a Summary Judgment Hearing, but I would like to wrap this case up this weekend either way.

    @Tony McFornell, please indicate the position of the defense on these two motions so that the nature of Saturday's proceeding can be determined.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Tony McFornell
Judicial Branch
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

Post by Tony McFornell »

Motion to Suppress
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Suppress

Honorable Judith Mason,

  • We the Defense in the case below are requesting that certain evidence be inadmissible in court.
    State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno
    Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0014
    Requesting Party: Defense
    Party Members: Tony McFornell, Cyrus Raven
    Requested Evidence to Suppress: Mr. Macquoid's oppinion from minute 5:00 in relation to the firearms and the office's response to the question asked in timestamp 5:30 from the interview.
    Detailed explanation:
    Mr. Macquoid is not a Firearms or Ballistics expert, and as such, their statement should hold no bearing in this court. That is why we respectfully request the answer to be suppressed from the record.

    Also, the answer provided in timestamp 5:30 provides no fact or statement, but rather an assumption or guess. This should not constitute any sort of proof or be taken into account by the court, as it does not allow in any way to prove -or not- the events that took place.

    As for the motion for Summary Judgment: We would like to clarify that there is no dispute in relation to the events that took place after receiving Mr. Macquoid's statement. As such, we will present our arguments as to why the motion SHOULD NOT be granted in the Prosecution's favor, and instead be granted in the defense's favor, during the upcoming hearing and/or trial.

Sincerely,

Image
Tony McFornell
Senior Defense Attorney
Image
Image
Tony McFornell
Senior Defense Attorney
Training & Hiring Staff
Law Review Committee

Contact me | Become an Attorney | Appeal a conviction | Press Releases | Private Legal Assistance
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: NashStalllion

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    With the introduction of Officer Macquoid's statement onto the record, it appears both parties have now agreed that a Motion for Summary Judgment is warranted, therefore, I am now granting that motion. As such, the proceeding that will take place on Saturday, August 6th at 12:30am (( UTC )) will be a Summary Judgment hearing, where I will hear oral arguments as to whether or not the mutually established facts in this case should allow your party to prevail.

    Prior to the arguments for Summary Judgment, we will be quickly reviewing the final Motions for Discovery (Sergeant Bill Breacher's statement and Officer Callum Macquoid's interview) before discussing the Motion to Suppress recently submitted by the defense.

    Thank you - I will see you on Saturday.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Judicial Branch
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Associate Justice Mason,

Unfortunately, I have received a phone call and need to help a friend with an urgent legal matter. Therefore, I cannot make it to the hearing scheduled to take place in 2.5 hours.

((OOC plans not lining up with getting on GTA tonight))
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: NashStalllion

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    Based on the scheduling tool, I will be rescheduling this hearing for Monday, August 8th at 1:30am (( UTC )), which is in approximately 31 hours.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: NashStalllion

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0014, State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno

Post by Judith Mason »

Image
Form 3.0.5 - Issuance of Verdict


San Andreas Judicial Branch
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT - 22-CM-0014


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Naomi Mizuno
22-CM-0014

CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee
VF05 - Felony Public Endangerment

A verdict was entered in the above case on the 8th day of August, 2022.


  • As has been presented to the court and concluded through a Motion for Summary Judgment, Ms. Naomi Mizuno did, on the 20th of April, 2022, engage in felony evasion of law enforcement officers after smashing into an Automated Teller Machine. During the subsequent pursuit, law enforcement officers and Ms. Mizuno found themselves underneath and beside the La Puerta Freeway, in between a frequently used highway and the roadway.

    Ms. Mizuno then discharged a firearm multiple times towards LSPD Officer Callum Macquiod in an attempt to hit his tire in order to disable his vehicle, however, only managed to hit the cruiser’s bumper apparently once. The pursuit continues with Ms. Mizuno driving further, then managing to take Officer Macquiod hostage after a collision in exchange for safe passage to leave the scene.

    Ultimately, Ms. Mizuno, once again, suffered a vehicle collision and was subsequently apprehended by law enforcement.

    It is the court’s decision that Ms. Mizuno, with the pistol that she fired at Officer Macquoid, did engage in an assault of that officer through the threat of bodily harm, using the pistol, with the intent to further evade arrest.

    The court has also found that Ms. Mizuno did place the public in acute danger by firing upon the officer several times near a frequently used freeway and roadway. Multiple shots were fired during the incident in the direction of the officer, however, it does not appear that all shots did, in fact, hit the vehicle. I have found that this did place the public in acute danger through the unsafe use of a firearm.

    It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
    • On the count of WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee, I find the defendant, Naomi Mizuno, guilty.
    • On the count of VF05 - Felony Public Endangerment, I find the defendant, Naomi Mizuno, guilty.


    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest