#23-AP-0003, Rachel Pilota v. State of San Andreas

[Cyrus Raven]

Appellant Name: Rachel Pilota
Appellant Attorney(s): Cyrus Raven

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0025
Presiding Trial Judge: Honorable Hugh Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [X] Before Verdict
  [ ] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [X] Motion to be overturned
  [ ] Errors in the trials procedure
  [ ] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
  [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence

Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)

• The Defense believes that part of the ruling made on the motion to suppress Exhibit #3 (see HERE) is not in line with previous rulings in the Superior Court that have established precedent on what evidence is allowed under the hearsay exceptions and the court's view on directly quoting individuals outside of the courtroom. Specifically,

  I will be allowing the portion stating, "I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense;". This is a statement made by Detective Sage recalling a conversation he personally had with the defendant, who (according to Detective Sage, and there being no evidence to the contrary) provided this statement willingly. Furthermore, this statement will be allowed under hearsay exception, "Official records by public employees are writing made by a public employee as a record of an act or event. The writing must be made within the scope of duty of a public employee". As the written statement commonly used by members of the judicial branch are sent to public employees to detail an act or event, and these statements are made within the law enforcement officers' scope of duty. Detective Sage's personally recollection of what the defendant said to him is a record of that event.

  Precedent
  
  • #22-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Hassan Readick
  • #22-CM-0071, State of San Andreas v. Vince Williams
  • #22-CM-0057, State of San Andreas v. Ali Valentine
  • #23-CM-0001, State of San Andreas v. Lennox Jet

[Colt Daniels]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Rachel Pilota v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0003

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 26th of February, 2023.

The case of the Rachel Pilota v. State of San Andreas is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0003.

Both parties in this case are now hereby ordered to submit an initial written brief within the next seven days outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why the court should rule in their favor.

Once submissions have been received, the court will either issue a decision or ask that parties submit an additional response for clarification, if required. If after seven days one of the parties in this appeal have failed to submit their brief the court will make a decision based on the information it has available.



Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Cyrus Raven]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-AP-0003, Rachel Pilota v. State of San Andreas "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Colt Daniels,
  
  On the 20th day of February, 2023, a court decision was issued regarding a motion to suppress. The Defense requested that several portions of Exhibit #3: Witness Statement Lance Sage be suppressed. One of these sections was the following:
  

  I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense;

  We believe this is a clear example of hearsay as Detective Sage is using an out of court statement to prove a matter of fact by quoting what was allegedly said without any further foundation having been established or corroborating evidence.
  
  Honorable Hugh Allgood justified this decision, stating ''This is a statement made by Detective Sage recalling a conversation he personally had with the defendant, who (according to Detective Sage, and there being no evidence to the contrary) provided this statement willingly. Furthermore, this statement will be allowed under hearsay exception, "Official records by public employees are writing made by a public employee as a record of an act or event. The writing must be made within the scope of duty of a public employee". As the written statement commonly used by members of the judicial branch are sent to public employees to detail an act or event, and these statements are made within the law enforcement officers' scope of duty. Detective Sage's personally recollection of what the defendant said to him is a record of that event.''
  
  We argue that a witness statement does not constitute an ''Official record by public employee'' as the statement is not a recording of the interrogation, a transcript of the interrogation or otherwise a record of the alleged conversation between the Detective and the Defendant as part of the Detective's usual duties. A witness statement should not be seen as a record by a public employee as these are usually not written and kept throughout the regular duties of a law enforcement officer, but instead are requested by the prosecution if an appeal is filled or during the construction of a indictment. It is a rare occasion, given the amount of arrests that happen daily, that an Officer will be asked to provide a witness statement for a court case, for most Officers they don't deal with the courts on a day to day basis. We argue that classifying these witness statements as an ''Official record by public employee'' would be against the spirit of the exemption to the hearsay rule and opens this court up to any witness statement by a law enforcement Officer being able to fabricate quotes based on their recollection of events instead of relying on properly kept transcripts of interrogations or direct evidence such as recordings.
  
  Additionally, the Superior Court of San Andreas has already settled this matter in prior cases.
  
  • #22-CM-0057, State of San Andreas v. Ali Valentine

    In relation to the Motion to Suppress filed by the defense on the 25th of Janaury 2023, I will be approving the request to suppress a portion of Exhibit #4 as it constitutes Hearsay. The following will be suppressed an inadmissible, "After that, Billy Drake walked up to me and essentially let me know who was the person that was shooting. His name was Ali Valentine. He injured and shot down one of my employees."

  • #22-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Hassan Readick

    In regards to the Motion to Suppress filed by the defense on November 23rd, 2022, I will be granting that motion. This is due to the courts belief that parts of the witness statement from Police Detective Willowick do constitute hearsay. This is due to a witness not being able to quote what somebody said outside of the courtroom.

  • #22-CM-0071, State of San Andreas v. Vince Williams

    However I will be granting the suppression of Exhibit #2: Witness Statement Callum James Incident #2 as a witness cannot quote what someone outside the courtroom said.

  • #23-CM-0001, State of San Andreas v. Lennox Jet

    In relation to the request to suppress a portion of Exhibit #3, I will be partly approving the suppression as the statement made constitutes Hearsay. The following will be suppressed, "when we arrested them I asked the passenger why she didn't get out and she said that the driver was her son and didn't wanna leave him alone and that she was fully aware that they were evading"

  Given the above arguments and established precedent, we urge the court to accept this appeal and partially overturn the decision made on the 20th day of February, 2023, suppressing the following statement due to hearsay.

  I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense;

  
  Respectfully,
  
  Cyrus Raven
  Deputy Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  5356160 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Rachel Pilota v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0004

A decision was reached in the above case on the 7th day of March, 2023.

As the respondent in this appeal has failed to respond with their written brief within the seven day window provided to them, the court will be making a decision based on the information it has available.

The appellant in this case is seeking the overturning of a Court Decision filed by the presiding judge in #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota. In this decision, the presiding judge found the witness statement made by Detective Lance Sage did not constitute hearsay.

The presiding Judge in this case states that this statement will be allowed under the hearsay exception, "Official records by public employees are writing made by a public employee as a record of an act or event. The writing must be made within the scope of duty of a public employee". As the written statement commonly used by members of the judicial branch are sent to public employees to detail an act or event, and these statements are made within the law enforcement officers' scope of duty. Detective Sage's personally recollection of what the defendant said to him is a record of that event.''

The appellant states they are requesting to suppress the statement, "I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense;" as this statement constitutes hearsay as the witness statement should not be seen as a record by a public employee as these are usually not written and kept throughout the regular duties of a law enforcement officer.

Furthermore the appellant argues that classifying these witness statements as an ''Official record by public employee'' would be against the spirit of the exemption to the hearsay rule and opens this court up to any witness statement by a law enforcement officer being able to fabricate quotes based on their recollection of events instead of relying on properly kept transcripts of interrogations or direct evidence such as recordings.

In previous court cases, precedent has been set by the court that witness statement are not covered under the exception to hearsay as a witness, even if a public employee, cannot quote what someone outside the courtroom has said. As presented by the appellant, this has been decided in cases such as #22-CM-0057, #22-CM-0066, #22-CM-0071, and #23-CM-0001.

Thus, it is this court's determination that the presiding judge's decision that the witness statement provided by Detective Lance Sage did not constitute hearsay as presented in the underlying case of #23-CM-0025, State of San Andreas v. Rachel Pilota was inaccurate. Therefore the Court of Appeals is now reversing the Superior Courts Decision of the case and is remanding it back to the presiding judge in the Superior Court with the following statement suppressed, "I asked about her interactions with Waldo and she admitted during her statement saying and I quote "I heard on the radio that he had a gun so I ran him over in self-defense;".



Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]