#23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine

User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO AMEND


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine
#23-CM-0035

A Motion to Amend was filed in the above case on the 14th of March, 2023.


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Amend, the original charges with the underlined amended charges.


  • Original Charges
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
    • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
    • GM04 - Resisting Arrest
    • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. Employee

  • Amended Charges
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
    • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
    • GM04 - Resisting Arrest
    • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • Primarily GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. Employee, subsidiarily GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. Employee
    • GF24 - Perjury

  • Detailed Explanation:

    The Prosecution notes that since the time of the original Motion to Amend Charges, the Superior Court of San Andreas has ruled that the lessed included doctrine is in fact applicable in cases, which was not evident at the time of writing this original Motion. As such, and as this renewed Motion to Amend Charges has been submitted over 24 hours before the start of the trial, with the available evidence in mind, the Prosecution will be pursuing primarily GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. Employee, subsidiarily GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. Employee.

    Furthermore, with reference to the Motion for Discovery, the Prosecution notes that as per the Defendants' narrative under oath as submitted to the court, the Defendant has knowingly and willingly made numerous clearly untrue statements in this official statement to mislead the court in this trial. In this respect, the Prosecution notes to the following sentences:
    • 1. Upon this a cop cruiser pulls up and demands me to get inside the car (they have a gun). - please refer to previous evidence exhibits where it can be concluded that these individuals were in fact affiliated with each other.
    • 2. End of story, they drive over spike strips and I get out of the back seat of the car and start limping around the corner. - refer to previous evidence exhibits where it becomes abundantly clear the Defendant was actively running rather than limping.
    • 3. I get into the city to play poker and sell my car and I end up in jail for complying, - the Prosecution notes with reference to the evidence exhibits as previously presented to the court that the Defendant clearly did more than just playing poker and attempting to sell a car.
    • 4. I comply with the criminals and get thrown into jail as an innocent man. - refer to previous evidence exhibits where it becomes abundantly clear the Defendant was in fact complicit and affiliated with the other individuals.
    • 5. I was put into jail for no reason, other then being held hostage in the back seat of the car. I was unlawfully jailed. - refer to previous evidence exhibits where it becomes abundantly clear the Defendant was in fact not held hostage by his affiliated people.


    The Prosecution notes that in case the Prosecution had not been able to present the abundantly clear evidence as kindly provided by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department as previously presented to the Court, these false statements by the Defendant, which are in a direct relation to this trial, would at the very least have had the potential to affect the outcome of the trial. As such, the Prosecution can only conclude that the action of knowingly and willingly providing these false statements to the court should only result in the application of the charge GF24 - Perjury.




Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hugh Allgood
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name: HotPipinLeo

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine

Post by Hugh Allgood »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine
#23-CM-0035

A decision was reached in the above case on the 15th day of May, 2023.


Prior to the trial, the Presiding Judge took up arguments for the previously detailed motion to amend. After hearing arguments, the Presiding Judge decided to deny the motion to amend charges on grounds of the motion being filed in an untimely manner. Additionally, the case precedence cited in the motion was decided back in March, and therefore, nothing precluded the Prosecution from making this motion much earlier.

The defendant, Tony Fontaine, was originally charged and appealed his charges of NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, GM10 - Failure to Comply, GM19 - Face Concealment(b), GM04 - Resisting arrest, VF01 - Evading an officer, and GF11 - Grand Theft Auto. The prosecution filed a motion to amend to add the charge of GF24 - Perjury. Upon review of all the evidence and testimony during the trial held on 15/MAY/2023, the court summarizes the evidence as follows;

On 17/January/2023, the Los Santos Police Department arrested the defendant, Tony Fontaine. As noted in exhibit #1, the defendant at the time of their arrest was within a stolen police cruiser, ran on foot after the cruiser was crashed, and was wearing a mask while doing so. Within exhibit #2, a written statement from Police Officer III +1 Joseph Sanchez, it is further revealed that Mr. Fontaine was one of three other occupants in the stolen police cruiser at the time of the act. During the pursuit, pursuing law enforcement officers were fired upon by several of the occupants of the vehicle, which based on the evidence appears to be the two co-defendants who were armed and remained in the vehicle after it crashed. The defendant and driver of the vehicle fled on foot. The defendant purportedly made statements to law enforcement about being kidnapped, and therefore, not a willing participant of the evasion.

While running on foot, the defendant ignored multiple demands from law enforcement, running around haphazardly, including making call-outs over the radio, "Yo guys, back alley, one guy". As noted in the verbal verdict, the court notes this to be indicative of the defendant communicating with at least one other individual. However, the frequency of the other co-defendants was not captured, and therefore, there is reasonable doubt on who the defendant was speaking to, and whether it was one of the co-defendants in this case.

Going through the charges faced by the defendant, the court will first discuss the charges that the court feels are not as evident:

For NM03, the court notes there is dispute on whether or not the Defendant knowingly engaged in illegal acts while being involved in a group of two or more. If the frequency of the radios had been established, this would be more clear. As noted in the verbal verdict, a co-defendant (Becks Hirano) was present in the court room and did make a statement, "Shoutout to my boy Darius, he always got my back when we out claiming cruisers", during the trial. However, this statement only implicts Becks Hirano and Darius Baker in the stealing of the cruiser, and does not implicate the defendant. The prosecution did not meet the burden of proof to prove this charge. For VF01, the court does agree the defendant was within a stolen vehicle, however, the prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proving that the Defendant either stole the cruise, or engaged in acts that would have made the Defendant an accessory to such theft. Lastly, for GF24. The prosecution points out several statements the defendant makes in their written submission. All of these point to the defendant's actions during this pursuit and the resulting intent. As already noted, there is reasonable doubt cast on the prosecution's version of events, and therefore, there is not conclusive evidence that the defendant's statements are untrue or intended on misleading the court.

For the charges the court feels are clear and evident:

For GM10, the court does find the defendant failed to comply with orders of law enforcement who ordered him to surrender. For GM19, the court does find the defendant did indeed conceal their face while engaged in prohibited conduct (in this instance, resisting arrest), as detailed in subsection 3 of GM19. For GM04, the court also finds the defendant did run on foot with intent to avoid arrest. Had the defendant been kidnapped, the only way for law enforcement to properly investigate this would have been if the defendant did not flee their attempts to detain him for this investigation.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
  • On the count of NM03 - Unlawful Assembly, I find the defendant, Tony Fontaine, not guilty.
  • On the count of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, I find the defendant, Tony Fontaine, guilty.
  • On the count of GM19 - Face Concealment (b) , I find the defendant, Tony Fontaine, guilty.
  • On the count of GM04 - Resisting Arrest , I find the defendant, Tony Fontaine, guilty.
  • On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Tony Fontaine, not guilty.
  • On the count of GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. Employee, I find the defendant, Tony Fontaine, not guilty.
  • On the count of GF24 - Perjury, I find the defendant, Tony Fontaine, not guilty.


The defendant was reimbursed for the fines/fees faced for the charges for which they were acquitted, and paid for the time spent in the Department of Corrections. Again, the court thanks all involved parties for their patience while this matter was resolved.


Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest