#23-AP-0007, Doc Bathsheba v. State of San Andreas

[Cyrus Raven]

Appellant Name: Doc Bathsheba
Appellant Attorney(s): Cyrus Raven

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0016
Presiding Trial Judge: Honorable Judith Mason
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [ ] Before Verdict
  [X] 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)

• The Defense is looking to partially appeal the verdict issued for the case #23-CM-0016, State of San Andreas v. Doc Bathsheba for the charge GF11 - Grand Theft Auto.
  
  On the Issuance of Verdict, the presiding Judge stated:
  

  As for the Grand Theft Auto charge, the court has determined that although the defense has introduced doubt that the defendant was given permission to “test drive the vehicle,” there is not enough supporting evidence to support this assertion and, as such, the court believes that the defendant is liable for the Grand Theft Auto charge.

  It is the Defense's position that reasonable doubt has been successfully introduced not only by the Defendant's initial narrative where they state ''a man was offering the car for sale, and said i could take it out for a test drive.'' and ''i dnt think i should have went to prison for grand theft auto because keen and ledger have no proof that i stole the car... as i told them i was test driving it because it looked nice... far as i know the guy who let me driv it stoled it and they should go after him.'', but also through their own testimony during trial.
  
  At no point did the prosecution introduce evidence to assert that the vehicle had been forcibly taken, tampered with, broken into or otherwise accessed in a forceful manner. They did introduce an MDC print-out of the vehicle's page, stating it had been reported stolen.
  
  The Defendant had NO way to know the vehicle was stolen when they were handed the vehicle for a test drive. The Defendant acted in good faith and believed what they perceived at the time to be the owner, when he allowed the Defendant to take the car for a test drive. It is unreasonable to expect, as the prosecution argued during trial, that someone looking to test drive a vehicle has to ask for the owner's ID, proof of ownership and potentially submit a letter with intent to purchase the vehicle.
  
  It is with the above argument that we argue that there was an error in the trial's procedure, specifically with regard to the reasonable doubt introduced, as acknowledged by the court in their issuance of verdict. The burden of proof of a crime being committed is on the prosecution, they were able to prove the vehicle was reported stolen, not that the vehicle had been stolen by the Defendant, an assertion that was swiftly debunked following the witness testimony and narrative.
  
  Furthermore, we believe there has been an error in the Judge's interpretation of the law as GF11 - Grand Theft Auto is defined as ''Taking someone else's vehicle without consent.''. The Defendant had no reason to suspect the man who offered the vehicle for a test drive wasn't the owner. As the Defendant expressed, he was interested in potentially purchasing the vehicle. For the state to prosecute the Defendant for GTA, they would have to prove that the Defendant either knew the vehicle was stolen when he took it or to provide evidence that the Defendant stole the vehicle, perhaps by checking the vehicle for signs of tampering and documenting this or checking if the screw driver on the Defendant had any signs of recent use which might coincide with damage on the lock of the vehicle or ignition lock cylinder, none of which was provided by the prosecution.
  
  We request the court of appeals partially reverse the issuance of verdict from the superior court, finding the Defendant not guilty of the charge GF11 - Grand Theft Auto.
  
  Please consider this our written brief, although we find ourselves available for further clarification if needed by the court.

[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

Doc Bathsheba v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0007

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 11th of April, 2023.

The case of Doc Bathsheba v. State of San Andreas is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0007.

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 Personal Email "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Dear Honorable Colt Daniels,
  
  Please consider our initial appeal post our written brief.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Cyrus Raven
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
  5356160 — [email protected]

[Roderick Marchisio]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-AP-0007, Doc Bathsheba v. State of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Daniels,
  
  Firstly, the Prosecution frowns at the form error as submitted by the Appellant, yet subsequently accepted by the Court. It is evident the word limit has been surpassed in the grouds for appeal section. The Prosecution further notes that this is seemingly becoming a trend.
  
  In relation to the appeal as filed by the Appellant, the Prosecution notes the following:
  
  First of all, we note the facts in evidence as accepted by the Superior Court in the underlying case:
  • 1. The arrest report. The arrest report as written by Deputy Ledger of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department gives insight into the situation that led to the arrest of the Defendant. In this respect, we specifically note to the section in relation to the details of the incident leading up to the arrest. In this arrest report, Deputy Ledger indicates that he came across a vehicle during his patrol. After scanning the plate, the vehicle turned out to be reported stolen. The Deputy then initiated a pursuit, during which the vehicle crashed and the driver was pursued in a foot chase. The driver turned out to be the Defendant in question.
  • 2. The items as found on the Defendant. This included a radio, one unopened water bottle, one seemingly half full water bottle, two whiskey bottles and more noteworthy, a screwdriver and an opened bottle of whisky. In this respect, the Prosecution points out that a screwdriver is a tool frequently used to commit GF11 - Grand Theft Auto.
  • 3. The MDC scan. This snippet from the MDC is a scan from the pursuit in question. In this respect, the Prosecution points out the license plate is exactly as the one as mentioned in evidence exhibit #1. Further, the Prosecution points out that the vehicle with this license plate was registered to be stolen.
  • 4. The witness statement from the arresting Deputy. The witness statement as provided by Deputy Ledger with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department further shows that the Defendant was in fact the driver of the stolen vehicle and that multiple lawful orders were given to pull over during the pursuit while both lights and sirens were actively turned on. The Deputy confirms that he saw the Defendant exit the drivers' seat of the vehicle. Also, the Deputy confirms that the Defendant refused every attempt by them to collect a breath sample for a breathalyzer test. As such, in his witness statement, Deputy Ledger confirms the story in the arrest report as per evidence exhibit #1.
  The Defense's argument regarding the errors in the trials procedure surround their statement that the Appellant acted in good faith. As the appellant was seen driving away and evading police in a stolen vehicle, it is ridiculous to believe that the Appellant was doing anything but taking a vehicle without consent of the owner or even acted in good faith for that matter. It has been proven that the Appellant was given multiple lawful demands to stop the vehicle as noted in exhibit #4, which were willingly ignored. In fact, it has even been proven that the Appellant ran away from the vehicle, in an even bigger implication of guilt. We note there is no evidence of a supposed "friend in trouble" as referenced in the narrative, either.
  
  The Defense's argument regarding the error in the Judge's interpretation surround the lack of knowledge of consent. Through the evidence as presented to the Superior Court, it is evident that the vehicle was reported to the police as stolen. Ignorance does not create an exemption from the law, in contrary. With reference to the own actions of the Defendant, the attempt to evade from an officer in combination with the running from the vehicle, the Prosecution can only conclude that the only error that has been made in the underlying case is that the Defendant had not been charged with GM04 - Resisting Arrest.
  
  Furthermore, in case this vehicle was in fact not stolen, surely the Defense would have had no issues submitting either a copy of the vehicle keys, a MDC registration plate to confirm this fact or even a witness statement from the actual owner of the vehicle. The possibilities to prove this fact are endless, yet the Defense has utilized none of them.
  
  Following the above, the Prosecution can only conclude that the charge GF11 - Grand Theft Auto should apply. As such, we formally request the Court of Appeals to deny this appeal and uphold the original charges.
  
  

  ---

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

[Colt Daniels]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-AP-0007, Doc Bathsheba v. State of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Counselors,
  
  I apologize for the lack of communication from the court on this case. I am currently on a Leave of Absence out of the state and will return back to San Andreas on June 11th. Following my return I will be addressing the recent motions and arguments brought forth on this case and look at how to proceed forward in a timely manner. Thank you.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 402-9713 — [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

Doc Bathsheba v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0007

A decision was reached in the above case on the 12th day of June, 2023.

In the underlying case of 23-CM-0016, State of San Andreas v. Doc Bathsheba, the presiding judge in the Superior Court issued a verdict finding Doc Bathsheba guilty of GF11 - Grand Theft Auto on the 12th of March, 2023.

In this case, the defense asserts that reasonable doubt has been successfully introduced in multiple instances during the case. One being during the defendants filing of the case within the Superior Court but also by the defendants own testimony during the trial that took place on the 12th of March, 2023. The reasonable doubt the defense is referring to is the statements made that the defendant was simplify test driving a vehicle and had no indication that the vehicle was stolen when speaking to the individual about the sale of said vehicle.

The defense states that at no point did the prosecution introduce evidence to assert that the vehicle had been forcibly taken, tampered with, broken into or otherwise accessed in a forceful manner. They assert that the Defendant had no way to know the vehicle was stolen when they were handed the vehicle for a test drive and that the Defendant acted in good faith and believed what they perceived at the time to be the owner, when he allowed the Defendant to take the car for a test drive. Furthermore, the defense claims that the burden of proof of a crime being committed is on the prosecution, they were able to prove the vehicle was reported stolen, not that the vehicle had been stolen by the Defendant, an assertion that was swiftly debunked following the witness testimony and narrative.

In rebuttal, the prosecution notes that throughout all the evidence presented within the case, it is clear that the defendant knowingly had possession of a stolen vehicle. This knowledge by the defendant led to a pursuit ensuing and the foot chase that later followed. The prosecution also noted the belonging of the defendant that were used as evidence, most notably, a screw driver which is claimed to be commonly used for the crime of GF11 - Grand Theft Auto. The prosecution also replies to the defense's argument regarding the error in the Judge's interpretation surround the lack of knowledge of consent. The prosecution asserts that through the evidence as presented to the Superior Court, it is evident that the vehicle was reported to the police as stolen and that ignorance does not create an exemption from the law. Lastly, the prosecutions states that the defense had numerous options in which they could get evidence to support these claims but the defense has utilized none of them.

It is the opinion of the court that although the defense has brought up a potential for doubt in this case, there is no evidence to support the claims made and testimony given that any of the alleged events the defendant claimed to have taken place. Therefore the court can only rule given the evidence provided, not on the basis of an alleged sequence of events.

It is with the above considerations that this court affirms the decision rendered in the Superior Court. The Superior Court's verdict to find the defendant liable for the GF11 - Grand Theft Auto charge is made without error. This case is now closed.


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