#24-CM-0012, State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes
#24-CM-0012

A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 2nd of May, 2024.

The State of San Andreas by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Summary Judgement, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Events are agreed upon.
  • Detailed Explanation: The fact that an individual was seen as a passenger in the trunk of a vehicle is uncontested, even in the defendant's own narrative in his initial appeal form. This, coupled with the expert witness statement underlining the dangers of allowing an individual to ride in the trunk of a vehicle, proves that the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle is appropriate for the events that occurred, as defined in the penal code as "Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle."

Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  Given the lack of response from Wood Law, pursuant to Article III - Section 7 of the San Andreas Constitution, the Defender's Office is hereby noticed that they shall assign a public defender to defend the interests of Mr. Kevin Reyes in this proceeding.
  
  In light of this order, the defender must acquaint themselves with the documentation provided through the docket, provide an answer to the request for summary judgment and present any motions should they require so.
  
  So ordered,
  
  Superior Court Judge
  Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

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

• Your Honor,
  I apologize for the delayed response, I was just informed that this case needed a new representation. Wood Law will still be representing the defendant in this case. I am formally requesting a 28-hour continuance to familiarize myself with the case.

Defense Attorney
Wood Law
(909) 2956979 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

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

• Your Honor,
  I have caught myself up with this case and am now ready. We have no objections to the prosecution's Motion for Summary Judgement and are ready to proceed.

Defense Attorney
Wood Law
(909) 2956979 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Kevin Reyes
#24-CM-0012

A decision was reached in the above case on the 14th day of May, 2024.

The Superior Court finds that the facts of the case are not being disputed, an opinion that has also been backed by the interventions of both the Prosecution and the Defense in this case. The Court, therefore, grants the Motion for Summary Judgment.

With that in mind, the Court will grant the prosecution 48 hours to provide closing arguments in light of this motion. After the prosecution presents their final arguments, or the 48 hour period expires -whichever happens first-, the defense will be granted the same amount of time to present their closing arguments before a final verdict is issued.

So ordered,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected][/list]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecutions case has presented a clear version of events. Exhibits #1-4 detail the events of November 17th, where a traffic stop was performed on an individual due to a suspected invalid license and/or traffic violation. The vehicle is pulled over and upon approaching the vehicle the officer notices an individual being housed in the back of the vehicle, specifically in the trunk of the car. The officer took pictures of the individual in the boot of the vehicle as can be seen in exhibit #1.
  
  None of these facts are up for debate. The charge the defendant was issued is titled VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. The law specifically states "Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle." The prosecution contends that allowing an individual to ride in the trunk of a vehicle is a clear violation of proper care for the life of the passenger(s). Exhibit #5, the expert witness statement written by the Interim Assistant Head of AMU Viktor Markov, illustrates the dangers of allowing individuals, even injured, to ride in the trunk.
  
  Initially, Master EMT Markov spoke about the dangers have having individuals that we injured riding in the trunk. He detailed safer ways to transport, the ability to call MD, and an overall notion that individuals should avoid being transported in the trunk regardless of injury. Specifically the prosecution would like to note the potential head trauma that could come from a roll cage, the potential for a traffic accident with even the most perfect of drivers, the possibility for vehicle malfunctions, the danger of a rear end crash, lack of overall safety measures in the trunk for passengers.
  
  Master EMT Markov was detailed and thorough in his assessment, and it is clear to the prosecution that cars are designed with seats, seat belts, and safety measures for a reason. None of these exist if you are transporting an individual in the trunk and are therefore operating your road vehicle with intentional disregard for life. The prosecution believes the safety of the passengers to be solely on the shoulders of the driver, thus allowing another individual to be transported in your vehicle inside a trunk should find the driver guilty of the charge VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

Defense Arguments
State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes

Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

• The prosecution has put forth a storyline but it relies on a crucial misunderstanding of the legal definition of "operation" in the context of VM03. Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.
  
  The charge in question specifically relates to " disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle." This definition explicitly requires the prosecution to prove that my clients way of driving—his handling of the vehicle—showed a conscious disregard for life or property.
  
  To clarify in this context "operation" refers to actively controlling and managing the vehicle by the driver. It includes actions, like steering, accelerating, braking and maneuvering the vehicle. The prosecution has not presented any evidence indicating that Mr. Reyes operated the vehicle recklessly or dangerously. There is no claim that he was speeding driving erratically or engaging in behaviors typically associated with operation. In reality the traffic stop occurred solely because the registered owner of the vehicle (not our client) had a suspended drivers license as Mikael Cowell mentioned.
  
  The prosecutions argument revolves around the presence of a passenger in the trunk of the vehicle. Although this fact is not in dispute it doesn't directly relate to how Mr. Reyes drove the vehicle. The passenger being in the trunk is a matter and shouldn't be seen as reflecting Mr. Reyess actions as the driver. It's essential to note that an individual choosing to ride in the trunk doesn't automatically mean that the driver was operating recklessly.
  
  Viktor Markovs expert witness statement sheds light on the risks of being in the trunk but it doesn't address the main issue of vehicle operation. While Mr. Markov points out dangers he fails to link these risks to any reckless behavior on Mr. Reyess part while driving.
  
  According to the law outlined in the penal code proving reckless operation requires demonstrating a deliberate disregard for safety through how one operates a vehicle. This element has not been proven here. Instead by intertwining the risks related to a passenger riding in the trunk, with Mr. Reyess driving conduct the prosecution misinterprets and misapplies this statute.
  
  In summary the defense argues that the prosecution has not successfully shown that Kevin Reyes was driving recklessly. Although having a passenger in the trunk is worrying it does not align with the criteria for "operation" as stated in VM03. Therefore we kindly ask this court to rule in support of the defense and dismiss the charges, against Mr. Reyes.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Defense Attorney
  Wood Law
  ☏ 295-6979