#23-AP-0005, Doris Murray v. State of San Andreas

[Shaun Harper]

Appellant Name: Doris Murray
Appellant Attorney(s): Shaun Harper

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0024
Presiding Trial Judge: Judge Hugh Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [ ] Before Verdict
  [X] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [X] Motion to be overturned
  [ ] 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)

• At the issuance of verdict, it was determined by the court that the Defendant was found guilty on the charge WF05. This was because there was enough reasonable suspicion that the defendant knew what was in the crate. The charge clearly states the following: ''A single individual in possession of 5 or more illegal or unlicensed firearms at one time exceeding personal use.'' Possession meaning: ''the state of having, owning, or controlling something.'' It is with this determination that the Defense feels that the charge 'WF05' should likewise be found non-guilty as logically, someone is unable to be in possession of the weapons without ever touching the crate and just being in the vicinity of said crate. The prosecution also failed to provide any evidence proving the defendant knew what was in the crate.

[Judith Mason]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Doris Murray v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0005

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

The case of the Doris Murray v. State of San Andreas is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0005.

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.



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

[Roderick Marchisio]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-AP-0005, Doris Murray v. State of San Andreas "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Mason,
  
  As the Defense is the appealing party, it is the Defense's burden on appeal to demonstrate that errors occurred that require the verdict to be overturned. The Prosecution will therefore wait for the Defense to submit their appeal before submitting ours. I therefore ask you to confirm that the Prosecution has 7 days after the submission by the Defense to provide the court with a response.

---

Respectfully,

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

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-AP-0005, Doris Murray v. State of San Andreas "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Judith Mason,
  
  I believe the initial appeal outlines the issues the Defense has with the ruling.
  
  The Defendant was found guilty on the charge WF05. This was because there was enough reasonable suspicion that the defendant knew what was in the crate. This sets a dangerous precedent for future cases. The law must be applied consistently and fairly, and in this case, the lack of evidence for knowledge or intention to possess the illegal firearms should result in a non-guilty verdict for the charge of WF05.
  

  The prosecution argues the concept of the defendant constructively possessing the container of illegal firearms due to the defendant having the knowledge, intention, and ability to possess the items. While a novel idea to the Superior Court of San Andreas, the court finds this argument persuasive and more than reasonable.

  ''Constructive possession is a legal concept used to prosecute individuals who do not have physical possession of an item, but have knowledge of it and the ability to control it.'' However, this concept should not be applied in cases where there is no evidence that the defendant had the intention or ability to possess the item. Constructive possession should only be used in cases where there is sufficient evidence of the defendant's knowledge and ability to control the item in question. In this case, there is no such evidence, and the charge of WF05 should be found non-guilty.
  
  Furthermore, the charge WF05 clearly states that possession means "the state of having, owning, or controlling something." Therefore, simply being in the vicinity of the crate does not constitute possession.
  
  In the case presented, the prosecution failed to provide any evidence proving that the defendant knew what was in the crate. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the defendant had the intention or ability to possess the illegal firearms.
  

  As the prosecution pointed out, if the defendant was truly looking for an injured friend, the defendant could have mentioned this to the law enforcement officers she spoke to in the area, who would have arguably assisted the defendant in locating and seeking treatment for the friend, however, this did not occur.

  Neither the court nor the prosecution have any knowledge on what was said by the Defendant to Law Enforcement Officers involved in the situation. No witness statement or arrest report details any conversations following the arrest of the Defendant, merely that she was ''detained and the shipment secured''. Furthermore, the Defendant stated in their own narrative ''I was jumped by two police officers aiming heavy weapons at me while searching for my injured friend.
  

  Therefore, reasonable doubt is cast upon the defendant's statement and defense arguments about the defendant merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  The standard of proof for a charge such as WF05 should be extremely high. The idea that someone walking around a forested area and being next to a crate is equal to knowing about its contents and having possession of what is inside is not only illogical, but, again, sets an extremely dangerous precedent where anyone around an area with a crate is suddenly responsible for whatever is in it, with full knowledge of it's contents.
  

  The defendant, by her actions, took acts to search for the items by searching the bushes in the area of the shipment location, and appears to have had the intention to possess these items based on her actions to run directly towards the items before being apprehended, and had the ability to possess these items.

  This is false. No intention can be derived from the Defendant's actions in this situation. In fact, the Defendant's actions are already clear in their own narrative. They were looking for their friend in the area. Running towards a random crate and past it does not, in any way, show intent or possession of said crate. No attempt was made to open the crate, grab it, transport it, or in any way come into contact with it. In fact, in the prosecution's own evidence, the only thing that is seen is the Defendant standing a good 5-10 meters from the crate standing still, before being approached by armed Officers. Thus, the court's conclusion that the Defendant ''had the intention to possess these items based on her actions to run directly towards the items'' is not only false, but likewise unreasonable given the evidence.
  
  In conclusion, it is with the initial appeal statement and this brief that the Defense believes the decision regarding the charge WF05 - Firearms Trafficking be overturned and the Defendant be found not-guilty.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  I will confirm that the respondent in this case now has 7 days to provide a response to the appellant's submission now that it has been received.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Roderick Marchisio]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-AP-0005, Doris Murray v. State of San Andreas "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Mason,
  
  In the underlying case, the Appellant was prosecuted for and charged accordingly with WF05 - Firearms Trafficking. This charge reads as follows:

  A single individual in possession of 5 or more illegal or unlicensed firearms at one time exceeding personal use.

  As substantiation in this case, the Prosecution has presented an extremely detailed arrest report, two sets of bodycam footage, the contents of the illegal shipment and two elaborate witness statements. All of these show the chain of events as confirmed in the Issuance of Verdict of the Honorable Allgood, to which the Prosecutions has no additions at this point in time.
  
  In their appeal, the Appellant keeps referring to a potential "injured friend". However, the Prosecution notes that if this had indeed been the case, and as the Honorable Allgood concluded correctly, then it would not have been much trouble for the Defense to present a witness statement to the court from the injured friend, logs of a 911 call made to emergency dispatch or anything else that would have easily indicated the truth in the Defendants' narrative. With that being said, it is evident that by the actions of the Defendant, they took acts to search for the illegal shipment by searching the bushes in the are of the shipment location.
  
  The fact that the Defendant was not physically carrying the illegal firearms found in the shipment is irrelevant. For application of US criminal law, the term "possession" can be explained into either of two things: physical possession, when a person has direct physical control over an object, as well as constructive possession. Constructive possession is the ability of a person to exercise control over an object or property, even if that object or property is not physically in their possession. In this respect, the Prosecution notes the following key factors of constructive possession:
  
  • 1. Knowledge: the Defendant was clearly aware of the existence of the object, as the bodycam footage showed they were arrested no more than 10 metres from the illegal shipment;
  • 2. Intention: As proven by the evidence as previously provided to the court, it leaves no doubt that it was in fact the intention of the Defendant to exercise control over the illegal shipment;
  • 3. Ability: As further proven by the evidence as previously provided to the court, it leaves no doubt that the Defendant had the ability to exercise control over the illegal shipment. In fact, as seen in the bodycam footage, the Defendant was only stopped 10 metres away from it.
  Following the above, the Prosecution can only conclude that the appeal as submitted by the Appellant should be denied on all accounts and the original verdict confirmed.

---

Respectfully,

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

[Cyrus Raven]

Honorable Judith Mason,

Further arguments against the prosecution's brief are available if required by the court.

[Judith Mason]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Doris Murray v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0005

A decision was reached in the above case on the 30th day of March, 2023.

The appellant in this case is seeking the overturning of a guilty verdict in the case of #23-CM-0024, State of San Andreas v. Doris Murray, in which the defendant was found guilty of the charge WF05 - Firearms Trafficking, defined as, "A single individual in possession of 5 or more illegal or unlicensed firearms at one time exceeding personal use."

The appellant argues that as the defendant was not in actual physical possession of the firearms in question at the time of her arrest, she should not be found guilty, as the requirements of the charge have not been met. The respondent offers the counter-argument that the defendant had been in constructive possession of the firearms, as she had the knowledge, intent, and ability to possess the weapons at the time of her arrest, and therefore, has satisfied the requirements of the charge.

This court agrees that the concept of constructive possession is a novel one for the State of San Andreas, and therefore, deems it necessary to further define and clarify the requirements for an individual to be found in constructive possession of any form of property. Needless to say, constructive possession differs from actual possession in the sense that the property in question need not be directly in the possession or control of an individual, but rather, an individual have the knowledge of such property, have the intent to possess such property, and have the ability to possess such property at a certain point in time.

The knowledge aspect of constructive possession requires that an individual have specific knowledge of the property in question. In this case, while the appellant contends that the respondent has failed to prove the defendant had knowledge of the firearms, the respondent asserts that the defendant's apparent circling around the specific area of the woods which contained the illegal shipment, the defendant exiting the vehicle to search that area on foot, and the defendant running towards the shipment, indicate that the defendant had knowledge that there was, indeed, a shipment in that location. At trial, the defense had introduced the counter-narrative that the defendant was simply looking for an injured friend in the area, however, no evidence to support such a claim was ever introduced by the defense and the presiding judge in the Superior Court's decision to view this doubt as unreasonable is justified.

When it comes to the intent aspect of constructive possession, one must show that an individual has the objective to obtain the property in question. In this case, evidence had been submitted by the prosecution at trial to suggest a concerted effort between the defendant and Mikazuki Ueno in order to divert law enforcement attention away from the location of the shipment in order to safely obtain that shipment without intervention from law enforcement. This court agrees with the presiding judge in the Superior Court's interpretation that, given the deception offered and subsequently used by Mr. Ueno in a 911 call moments later, it can be inferred that this act was to divert law enforcement officers away from the location of the shipment and that the defendant's presence at the location of the shipment, appearing to search the area, shows that the prosecution has established the intent for the defendant to obtain the shipment.

As for the ability aspect for constructive possession, one must show that an individual had been in a position to be able to exercise control of the property in question. In this case, as the defendant had approached the shipment and was able to get within approximately 10 meters from the shipment before being apprehended by law enforcement officers, the court has determined that the defendant did have the ability to possess the shipment.

The court has thoroughly reviewed the evidence, arguments, and verdict behind this appeal and have come to the conclusion that the respondent had been able to satisfy the requirements that the defendant had been in constructive possession of the ten firearms which were recovered from the scene, and therefore, the Superior Court Judge's verdict to find the defendant liable for the WF05 - Firearms Trafficking charge is made without error. This court is hereby affirming the decision made by the presiding judge in the Superior Court. This case is now closed.



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