San Andreas Judicial Branch Personal Email "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Honorable Judge Judith Mason,
With all due respect, I must address the flawed reasoning presented by the Prosecution in their rebuttal.
The Prosecution's argument begins with a speculative scientific claim about the brain being disconnected from the body, suggesting that mental perception alone can cause detrimental effects. While it is true that the brain is connected to the body through the nervous system, this does not substantiate the claim that mental anguish alone constitutes cruel and unusual bodily harm, as required by the penal code.
The examples provided, such as the placebo effect and the impact of thoughts on well-being, do not support the argument that mental anguish should be equated with bodily harm under the law. These examples relate to the influence of psychological factors on a person's perception of pain or the body's response to certain stimuli, but they do not establish a direct correlation between mental anguish and the physical harm required for a charge of torture.
Additionally, the Prosecution attempts to introduce a purposive approach to the ruling, questioning the lawmakers' intent behind the penal code. Even if it's crucial to take legislative purpose into account, it is equally crucial to interpret the law based on its clear language and definitions. The penal code's definition of torture explicitly focuses on "inflicting cruel and unusual bodily harm upon another person." The inclusion of specific terms such as "bodily harm" suggests a legislative intent to differentiate between physical harm and other forms of distress or psychological impact.
The argument then takes a misguided turn by suggesting that strict adherence to the letter of the law would undermine the effectiveness of the legal system. However, it is precisely the adherence to the rule of law and the objective interpretation of its provisions that ensures fairness, predictability, and consistency in the legal process. Departing from the clear language and requirements set forth in the penal code based on subjective interpretations would lead to arbitrary and unpredictable outcomes.
Lastly, the mention of consciousness as a collection of brain chemicals and the assertion that mental anguish can be considered physical trauma under a scientific definition is an oversimplification of a complex topic. While scientific advancements may shed light on the relationship between the mind and body, It's essential to keep in mind that the law operates within its own framework, guided by legal standards and definitions.
The opposing counsel's argument fails to provide compelling evidence or sound legal reasoning to support their assertion that mental anguish should be equated with bodily harm under the penal code. By adhering to the clear language and requirements of the law, we ensure a fair and just legal process.
Respectfully,
Director of Training & Hiring
Deputy Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0047, State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Honorable Judge Judith Mason,
In accordance with the court's previous order dated the 24th of May 2023, the Defense hereby brings to the court's attention the failure of the Prosecution to comply with the instruction to indicate, under seal, the differentiation between the two types of presented evidence within the stipulated timeframe.
The court had ordered the Prosecution to submit the differentiation within seven days of the aforementioned notice. However, as of today's date, the Defense has not seen any updated submission under seal from the prosecution.
The Defense requests that this failure by the prosecution to fulfill its obligation be officially noted on the record. Despite the passage of the allotted time, the Prosecution has failed to uphold the court's order.
That being said, the Defense maintains that the Prosecution's non-compliance with the court's order reflects a disregard for due process in this case. We respectfully request that the court consider the impact of this when making a decision on the Motion to Dismiss.
Respectfully,
Director of Training & Hiring
Deputy Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
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. Carl Vespucci
#23-CM-0047
A decision was reached in the above case on the 14th day of June, 2023.
The court would like to thank the parties for their patience in this matter while the evidence and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed since their submission.
In regards to the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defense on the 6th of May, the defense has argued that a significant portion of the evidence provided by the prosecution has been in relation to conduct prior to the 25th of January, when the defendant had served time for a previous conviction of SF05 - Torture.
The defense further states that since the defendant has already served time for the aforementioned conduct, a second conviction that stems from the conduct prior to January 25th would constitute a violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment Right afforded to them by the San Andreas Constitution, which states that "No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb."
In response, the prosecution has argued that it has presented sufficient evidence to support a second conviction due to the conduct that occurred between January 25th and February 19th, when the defendant was charged with SF05 - Aggravated Torture of a Government Employee, of which this case is in regards to. The prosecution further asserts that the evidence of conduct prior to the January 25th conviction was used to show a pattern of conduct that extended further past the previous conviction and that the prior bad acts made in conjunction with the conduct displayed between January 25th and February 19th constitute a violation of SF05 - Aggravated Torture of a Government Employee.
While the court recognizes that prior bad acts which may establish a pattern of conduct may be admissible under certain circumstances, the fact of the matter is that probable cause of SF05 - Aggravated Torture of a Government Employee must be present in order for this case to move forward. More specifically, the prosecution must establish probable cause that Carl Vespucci inflicted cruel and unusual bodily harm upon an on-duty peace officer, paramedic, firefighter, correctional officer, executive, judicial, or legislative branch official, or their property, and further, that the victim of this crime required hospitalization as a direct result of the crime.
As it stands alone, SF05 - Torture is one of the most serious felony charges that exists within our Penal Code and with the dual modifiers of an aggravated crime as well as a crime against a government employee, the full weight for the charge of SF05 - Aggravated Torture of a Government Employee comes to a total of 202 months of incarceration and a fine of $27,000 - this is to say that the court recognizes the extreme seriousness of the crimes alleged, however, it cannot be understated that a significant portion of the evidence provided in this case has been for conduct prior to the defendants previous conviction.
The court has taken into consideration the prior bad acts as established by the evidence marked prior to January 25th and, as such, recognizes that the defendant has the disposition to commit this type of crime. At this point, the court must weigh the evidence which comes between the January 25th conviction and the February 19th arrest to ensure the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against being placed in double jeopardy have not been violated, and further, that probable cause exists to support a trial of the additional charge.
Some of the evidence, as indicated by the prosecution, that may support probable cause for this charge include but is not necessarily limited to the following:
Exhibit 12, which shows a 911 call [Redacted], reporting a note with the writing [Redacted] from around February 11th;
Exhibit 13, which shows a note with a drawing of [Redacted] with the writing [Redacted] from around February 11th;
Exhibit 15, which details the victim's state of mind at the time and includes a video recording of [Redacted] follows the victim for approximately 35 seconds from around February 19th;
Exhibit 16, which shows an approved Protective Order as issued by myself on the 29th of January;
Exhibit 19, which shows a text conversation between the defendant's phone number and the victim from an unknown date; and
Exhibit 24, from [Redacted] of the Los Santos Emergency Medical Services [Redacted], indicating that the victim "had a nervous breakdown [Redacted]" that "[Redacted] and a medical leave [Redacted]"
Despite the prosecution's arguments and assertions that the "bodily harm" language included in the base charge of SF05 - Torture be extended not only from physical harm but to emotional harm as well, the court has determined that the specific language of "bodily harm" is limited in it's meaning to be exclusively the physical condition of a person. While the court recognizes that the prosecution's interpretation of "bodily" may literally include the brain and, as such, that all accompanying aspects of mental health be taken into consideration when reviewing the definition of "bodily," however, it is this court's assertion that the specific reference to bodily harm, as included in the Penal Code, was intended to be limited in it's application to the legal definition of physical bodily harm as compared to the likes of emotional harm, emotional distress, or mental anguish.
While the defendant's actions between January 25th and February 19th may have violated a number of charges within the Penal Code, the limited definition of "bodily harm" requires that the defendant engage in physical contact with the victims of the alleged crime. Given that the above referenced evidence does not appear to extend beyond alleged threats, harassment, stalking, and creating an "aura of fear" for the victim, it is this court's ruling that probable cause does not exist for the charge of SF05 - Aggravated Torture of a Government Employee.
As such, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defense is hereby granted and the charge shall be removed from the defendant's record. Further, the defendant shall be compensated for time served and fines paid in the total amount of $67,400 - the defendant is instructed to report to City Hall at 1 Rockford Drive to receive said compensation and to have their record updated.
This case is now dismissed.
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
