Appellant Name: Doc Bathsheba
Appellant Attorney(s): Cyrus Raven
Appellant Attorney(s): Cyrus Raven
Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0016
Presiding Trial Judge: Honorable Judith Mason
Notice of Appeal Filed:
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
- 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:
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.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.
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.