#23-AP-0004, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba

[Roderick Marchisio]

Appellant Name: State of San Andreas
Appellant Attorney(s): Roderick Marchisio, Guilherme Tavares

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0027
Presiding Trial Judge: Hugh Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [ X ] Before Verdict
  [ ] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

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

Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)

• In the Court Decision dated February 28, 2023, Honorable Allgood has made a ruling in the case State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba. In this decision, the Honorable Allgood has ruled that the Prosecution will not be allowed to prosecute the Defendant for WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee. The Prosecution notes that in the courts of our State, the roles, rights and responsibilities of the three parties, Judge, Prosecution and Defense are clear. With this decision, the presiding Judge has taken a decision that belongs to the Prosecution to make, especially considering the fact there is at the very least an arguable position that this charge was in fact committed. Following this, the Prosecution is appealing the final part of the aforementioned court decision.

[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

State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba
#23-AP-0004

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 7th of March, 2023.

The case of the an Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0004.

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]

[Roderick Marchisio]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-AP-0004, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Daniels,
  
  In the Court Decision dated February 28, 2023, Honorable Allgood has made a ruling in the case State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba. In this decision, the Honorable Allgood has ruled that the Prosecution will not be allowed to prosecute the Defendant for WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee. The Prosecution notes that in the courts of our State, the roles, rights and responsibilities of the three parties, Judge, Prosecution and Defense are clear. With this decision, the presiding Judge has taken a decision that belongs to the Prosecution to make, especially considering the fact there is at the very least an arguable position that this charge was in fact committed. Following this, the Prosecution is appealing the final part of the aforementioned court decision.

---

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]

[Cyrus Raven]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-AP-0004, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Colt Daniels,
  
  It is the belief of the defense that the very nature of a Motion to Amend Charges is subject to the ruling by whichever Judge is in charge of the case and the prosecution should not presume based on prior cases that this motion would automatically be accepted.
  
  A motion is a formal request to the court, not a notice. As such, the presiding Judge can make whichever determination they wish given the circumstances and available evidence. This was the case, as stated by Judge Allgood.
  

  Next, I will be addressing the prosecution motion to amend charges. Based on a review of the evidence, I will be allowing the prosecution to pursue the charge of perjury, however, will not be allowing the charge of assault with a deadly weapon. The body camera footage shows the DOC Commander jumping onto the hood of the vehicle immediately before the vehicle drives off. Therefore, the DOC Commander assumes some risk of being injured should the vehicle drive off.

  Likewise, as determined recently in the court of appeals under #23-AP-0001, Hassan Readick v. State of San Andreas:
  

  The amount of evidence which is sufficient to support a conviction of a criminal charge is up to the specific judge that is presiding over a specific case, using the specific information which has been admitted into evidence. A judge is entitled to rule on whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge to be upheld in their courtroom.

  It is with the above reasoning and evidence that the Defense believes the decision made was not an error in the trials procedure or error in the judge's interpretation of the law.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Cyrus Raven
  Deputy Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  5356160 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba
#23-AP-0004

A decision was reached in the above case on the 22nd day of March, 2023.

The prosecution in this case is seeking the overturning of a Court Decision filed by the presiding judge in #23-CM-0027, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba. In this decision, the presiding judge ruled that the prosecution would not be allowed to pursue the charge of WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee as the commander assumed some risk of being injured should the vehicle drive off.

In this appeal the Prosecution notes that in the courts of our State, the roles, rights and responsibilities of the three parties, Judge, Prosecution and Defense are clear. With this decision, the presiding Judge has taken a decision that belongs to the Prosecution to make, especially considering the fact there is at the very least an arguable position that this charge was in fact committed.

The defense however makes the argument that the presiding Judge can make whichever determination they wish given the circumstances and available evidence.

It is the courts opinion that the prosecution can pursue additional charges against a defendant in a case using the Motion to Amend Charges, but only if, they can provide evidence to prove probable cause. In this case the evidence being used is the body camera footage of the commander.

It is the decision of the courts that the prosecution has probable cause to pursue this additional charge as the defendant drove off with the commander being on this hood of the vehicle. This however does not mean the defendant is guilty of said crime, that I will leave for the presiding judge to determine. 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 allowing the prosecution to pursue the charge of WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Government Employee.



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