San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF RECUSAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Martin James
#24-CM-0004
A Notice of Recusal was entered in the above case on the 14th of February, 2024.
I, Colt Daniels, the Presiding Judge on this case, will be recusing myself from the underlying case. Within the coming days I will transfer all documentation pertaining this case to a new Judge who will be presiding from here forward.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF REACTIVATION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Martin James
#24-CM-0004
A Notice of Reactivation was entered in the above case on the 9th day of March, 2024.
The case of the State of San Andreas v. Martin James is hereby reactivated by this Court under #24-CM-0004.
The court recognizes the following pretrial motions which have not yet been ruled on:
Prosecution's 08/JAN Motion for Discovery of an Arrest Report, Witness Statement, and Body-camera Footage
Defense's 11/JAN Motion to Suppress a portion of Exhibit #2
Defense's 15/JAN Motion for Discovery of the Defendant's MDC Records
Defense's 15/JAN Motion for Involuntary Dismissal
At this point in time, I will be reviewing the above motions and the subsequent arguments that have been previously submitted to the docket. Once reviewed, the court will likely permit parties to provide final responses before a pretrial decision is rendered, however at this time, the court requests that parties refrain from providing additional responses until the preliminary review has been conducted.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [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. Martin James
#24-CM-0004
A decision was reached in the above case on the 6th day of April, 2024.
The court has reviewed the previously submitted arguments for and against the pending pretrial motions, and has come to a decision.
The prosecution's 08/JAN Motion for Discovery is granted.
The defense's 11/JAN Motion to Suppress a portion of Exhibit #2 is granted in part as follows:
John Wallace wrote:
yet Mr. James continued to speed up to around 220 km/h
Motion to Suppress is denied - based on the evidence provided in the witness statement and the body-camera footage, it appears that the technique of "pacing" was utilized to determine the approximate speed of the defendant's vehicle. The court has determined that the witness may testify as to the approximate speed of the traveling vehicles, however, whether or not the defendant had, in fact, reached the exact speed of 220km/h is unclear in both the body-camera footage and the witness statement. The court will allow this approximation and will take into consideration that this is not an assertion of fact, but rather, an approximation based on the similarly matched speeds of the defendant's vehicle and the speed of the pursuing law enforcement officer.
John Wallace wrote:
Upon walking up to his vehicle, I asked for his drivers' license which he provided, when asked why he was speeding around, he replied that he had to hurry home.
Motion to Suppress is denied - the statement does not appear to have been provided to prove the truth of the matter asserted (namely whether the defendant had to hurry home), but rather as a means to establish the defendant's statement of mind/intent during the encounter, presumably to prove the "intentional disregard" that the charge requires. As this considered an exception to the hearsay rule, the motion is denied.
John Wallace wrote:
his excessive speed was nothing short of reckless, exceeding the allowed speed by 80+ km/h
Motion to Suppress is granted - as previously mentioned, the referenced 220km/h speed is based on the pacing technique to determine the approximate speed of the vehicle rather than a factual representation of the defendant's speed. While the witness may testify as to the vehicle's apparent excess of the speed limit based on the clocked speed of 204km/h, the specific reference of "by 80+ km/h" shall be suppressed.
John Wallace wrote:
I elected to charge him with only VM03 and not issue an additional citation for the speed on top of that.
Motion to Suppress is denied - while the statement may be factually incorrect as shown in the provided 15/JAN Motion for Discovery of the defendant's record, it is not considered hearsay and thus will not be suppressed.
The defense's 15/JAN Motion for Discovery is granted.
The defense's 15/JAN Motion for Involuntary Dismissal is denied - neither the Lesser Included Offenses Doctrine nor Double Jeopardy come into play for this case to be dismissed. Firstly, this court does not issue decisions on citations issued to citizens of the state and thus will only be making a determination on the Reckless Operation criminal charge. Secondly, the prosecution has provided arguments that the charge of Reckless Operation is not solely based on the speed of the defendant's vehicle, but also for the alleged abrupt emergency stop in the middle of the highway. Finally, double jeopardy does not attach in the same way for citations as it does for criminal charges, as the pressing of a citation is not generally considered a prosecution as compared to the pressing of a misdemeanor or felony criminal charge.
Though the court had originally indicated that it would likely permit parties to provide additional responses before a pretrial decision was rendered, the court has determined that sufficient information has already been supplied. Should parties wish to challenge the decision made, the court will permit a period of 72 hours to provide a written response in favor of reconsideration by the court before moving forward to trial.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
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. Martin James
#24-CM-0004
A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 07 of April, 2024.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Summary Judgement, and the reasoning for the request is as follows;
Reasoning: Observation of facts
Detailed Explanation: Based upon sufficient information being submitted by both the prosecution and defense in conjunction with the rulings made by the presiding judge, Associate Justice Judith Mason, on the 6th day of April, 2024, there are ample facts for summary judgement.
Al Triton
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 318-8168 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
The prosecution understand the position the current public defense counsel is in and we sympathize. That being said as long as the defendant is okay with waiving any claims to Conflict of Interest or COI for Mr. Triton to represent him, the prosecution would be fine waiving our right to dispute the case in regards to the current COI with Attorney Triton. Essentially we are stating, if the defendant would like to be represented by Attorney Triton, the prosecution has no objections.
Respectfully,
Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
I have lost faith in the ability of Wood Law to effectively act as counsel in this case with no communication in months, and I am okay with waiving any claims of COI to have Mr. Triton act as my attorney.
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Martin James
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 12th of May, 2024.
I, Al Triton, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Martin James, in the underlying case.
I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
Al Triton
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 318-8168 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
Mister James has asked that his prior statement for Dismissal be recanted and that the Motion for Summary Judgement be unchallenged so a Summary Judgement could be made.
Very Respectfully,
Al Triton
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 318-8168 — [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. Martin James
#24-CM-0004
A decision was reached in the above case on the 21st day of June, 2024.
The court would like to apologize for the length of time taken before the issuance of this decision and thanks the parties involved for their patience.
The defense's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted. As it has been some time since the most recent responses, I would ask that counsel for parties involved indicate that they are available to move forward with the typical timelines of Summary Judgment proceedings. Once received, the court will initiate proceedings with a notice to the docket and each party will be given a 72-hour window to present initial arguments to the court starting with the prosecution.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Justice Mason and pertaining parties,
The prosecution is prepared for the case to move forward for summary judgement. We will be ready when the defense is to submit on the typical timeline.
Respectfully,
Attorney General
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Parties,
The Summary Judgment proceedings are now in progress.
The court requests initial arguments from the prosecution within 72 hours. Following the prosecution's submission on the docket, the defense will be given 72 hours for their initial arguments. Each party will then be given an additional 72 hours for any counter-arguments to be submitted prior to deliberations.
Respectfully,
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
We find ourselves reviewing this case today due to the actions of the defendant. Mr. Martin James was charged with VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle on the 9th of September, 2023, after being spotted driving at speeds of over 200 km/h. The prosecution has an arrest report, a witness statement, and bodycam footage to prove the facts of the case. The only question left is whether or not the actions of the defendant apply to the charge VM03.
The prosecution would like to begin our first statement by reviewing the facts of the case as it stands.
A vehicle driven by the defendant, Martin James, was recorded driving at 204 km/h on Senora Freeway. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
A sheriff initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle with lights and sirens. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
As the sheriff pursued, the individual continued to accelerate their speed. (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3)
The vehicle driven by the defendant abruptly stopped in the middle of the highway. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The individual did not immediately pull over to the side of the freeway but instead asked if he was being chased. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
Undersheriff John Wallace asked the individual to pull to the side of the road. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The defendant provided his license to the sheriff. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The individual stated he was speeding due to a need to be somewhere quickly. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The question left is whether or not excessive speeds (over 200 km/h) combined with the sudden braking in the middle of the freeway are enough to constitute the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. The charge specifically reads, "Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle." The prosecution believes that with the defendant admitting to willfully speeding, stopping in the freeway, and driving at excessive speeds, the prosecution has more than met their burden of proof.
Let us first review the operation of motor vehicles at excessive speeds. The courts widely recognize, as does our penal code, the need for reduced speeds. Lower rates of travel lead to a lower rate of danger for passengers, drivers, and civilians. When an individual decides to break that posted limit, not only break it but far exceed it, the prosecution feels the charge should be upgraded. We believe passing 200 km/h instantly makes the driver liable for a charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, as one cannot unintentionally drive at that speed.
Additionally, both the braking in the middle of the road and failing to pull to the side for law enforcement have the potential to affect civilians as well as government personnel on the roadways. Failing to yield to law enforcement can cause a medic or officer to arrive on the scene late, and when time is of the essence, every second is important. Other drivers on the roadway may not have been expecting or prepared for the sudden stop, and the defendant could've caused a pile-up on the freeway.
The prosecution believes every action has a reaction, and simply because the defendant was lucky his actions did not have a greater reaction does not mean that he should not face consequences. Thank you to both the defense and the Judge on the case for taking the time to review. We look forward to the execution of justice.
Respectfully,
Attorney General
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
This case exists as with the current standing of precedence and the penal code, there's no clear definition of whether or not Mr. James was acting with Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle. While many facts presented by the Prosecution could seem to culminate into a VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle charge, none meet the charge individually.
As for the facts laid out by the Prosecution and the appropriate charges:
A vehicle driven by the defendant, Martin James, was recorded driving at 204 km/h on Senora Freeway. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The above resulted in a VC03 - Speeding 3rd Degree citation being applied
A sheriff initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle with lights and sirens. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
As the sheriff pursued, the individual continued to accelerate their speed. (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3)
The vehicle driven by the defendant abruptly stopped in the middle of the highway. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The individual did not immediately pull over to the side of the freeway but instead asked if he was being chased. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The above could easily be the two charges, VC05 - Improper Traffic Maneuvers, Failing to maintain a lane while commencing with the normal flow of traffic and VC06 - Following or Impeding Emergency Response, Failure to yield and pull off to the side in order to make way for emergency vehicles with flashing lights and or sirens, following or impeding them without valid and legal justification.
Undersheriff John Wallace asked the individual to pull to the side of the road. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The defendant provided his license to the sheriff. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The individual stated he was speeding due to a need to be somewhere quickly. (Exhibits 2 and 3)
The last pieces show the compliance of Mr. James in the end once his error in pulling over correctly was addressed to him.
Each aspect of the timeline laid out by the facts could be attributed to citations. Should the culmination of these citations be regarded as VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, or should they each have been separate citations that represent themselves?
The defense believes we must ever be vigilant about what the future will contend with by precedence set by a case's ruling. Should Mr. James be found guilty of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, will anyone who speeds and doesn't pull over properly be charged with VM03? Will any traffic stops resulting from 2 or more citations be attributed as VM03? These questions must be answered clearly and definitively to ensure that the ambiguity going forward is mitigated.
Thank you to both the Judge and the Prosecution for all your efforts in this endeavor of justice and we look forward to the results of it.
Very Respectfully,
Al Triton
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 318-8168 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
The defense asks the question, "will anyone who speeds and doesn't pull over properly be charged with VM03?" The prosecution surely hopes the answer to be a resounding "no". What the prosecution would like to point out is that this is not just a case of "failing to pull over properly". The defendant chose to not only stop in the middle of the road, but also attempted to speak to law enforcement prior to pulling over. Failure to yield to law enforcement (VC05), speeds ranging from 200-220 kl/h (VC03), and parking in the highway (VC05) are surely enough to warrant the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.
If this had been a time where the freeway was busier and full of traffic the damage to civilians could've cause a multiple car pile up. Instead the Undersheriff Wallace exercised his Sheriff's discretion to apply both VC03 and VM03. Double jeopardy exists when the defendant is being charged with the same crime for the same instance. The defendant is not being charged with the same crime as the crime of VC03 only requires the defendant to have speed excessively. VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle CAN include speeding, but does not have to see the driver of the vehicle speeding to be applied. As the crime VM03 requires different elements, Undersheriff Wallace and now the prosecution have correctly charged the defendant.
VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle is defined as "Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle." It does not require multiple citations to have been committed, but the prosecution and defense together have already agreed to the guilt of 3. One citation does not seem intentional, unless it is dangerous and unrestrained speeding. However, the defendant is guilty of not just 1, but 3. 3 is most certainly intentional.
We thank the courts and defense for their time and consideration. As this case comes to a close, we ask that the courts uphold justice and the safety of civilians on the roadways.
Respectfully,
Attorney General
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
The defense has no further counter-arguments and wishes for the prosecution to retain its right to be last to speak due to the burden of proof before deliberations.
Very Respectfully,
Al Triton
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 318-8168 — [email protected]
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. Martin James
#24-CM-0004
A decision was reached in the above case on the 25th day of July, 2024.
The case of #24-CM-0004, State of San Andreas v. Martin James has been resolved.
On the 9th day of September, 2023, members of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department were observing traffic on the side of Senora Freeway nearby the off-ramp next to Bolingbroke Penitentiary. Martin James, while operating his vehicle in a southbound direction on Senora Freeway, had been observed traveling at a rate of speed of 204 km/h as he passed the Sheriff's Department cruiser.
Law enforcement quickly initiated lights and sirens in an attempt to pull over the vehicle for a traffic stop due to speeds well above the 145 km/h speed limit on the highway. Body-camera footage shows and witness statements state that in an attempt to catch up, approximate speeds of 220 km/h were reached, with the assertion that Mr. James had been traveling at this rate of speed on the highway and through a city intersection nearby Upper Pillbox Hospital, and onto Del Perro Freeway.
Law enforcement officers continued following Mr. James with lights and sirens, which eventually led to Mr. James abruptly stopping in the center lane of Del Perro Freeway to ask if he was being pursued. Mr. James was told to pull over to the side of the highway, to which he did, and the traffic stop was conducted without further incident.
The prosecution has asserted that VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle fits the actions taken by the defendant, mentioning the excessive speeds marked by radar at 204 km/h on Senora Freeway, the continued apparent acceleration in speed after lights & sirens were activated, and the abrupt stop in the middle of the highway. The prosecution has asserted that the combined offenses previously mentioned constitute a willful intent to violate the law, and more specifically, is done so in a manner that intentionally disregards life and/or property as so stipulated in the offense charged.
The prosecution notes that the penal code in numerous areas recognizes the need for reduced speeds through the established speed limits on San Andreas roads and the number of charges and citations that supplement other aspects of driving in an effort to reduce the risk of injury to any person or their property. Furthermore, the prosecution expands that the defendant's action to immediately stop in the middle of the highway constitutes an immediate danger due to the speeds regularly reached on highways and the high likelihood of subsequent collisions as a result of stopping in an unsafe area rather than on the side of the road.
The defense, on the other hand, has asserted that Mr. James had not been acting with intentional disregard for life and/or property as required by the statute. The defense further states that while a number of traffic laws may have been violated during this incident, such as VC03 - Speeding 3rd Degree, VC05 - Improper Traffic Maneuvers, and VC06 - Following or Impeding Emergency Response, none of the actions in and of themselves constitute a violation of the Reckless Operation misdemeanor charge being discussed in this case.
After a thorough review of the evidence by the court, the following determinations can be made: Mr. James is found to have exceeded the speed limit on Senora Freeway by at least 59 km/h. Mr. James, while maintaining speeds well in excess of the posted speed limit, continued driving southbound from Senora Freeway while law enforcement officers pursued from an unspecified distance behind him. Mr. James, after having taken an off-ramp near Pillbox Hospital, continued onto Del Perro Freeway, at which point, came to a complete stop in the center lane and asked if he was the one being pursued. Mr. James complied with orders to pull over to the side of the road once instructed to do so.
In order to find the defendant guilty of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in "Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle."
To cover the basics, it is clear from the evidence and uncontested that Mr. Martin James was operating a road vehicle at the time of his arrest. It is now the court's role to determine if the evidence shows that Mr. James had operated said vehicle with "intentional disregard for life and/or property."
The court would tend to agree with the defense in their assertions that no one individual act taken by the defendant during the incident in question constituted a violation of reckless operation, be that excessive speeds identified in VC03, failing to yield to law enforcement with lights & sirens in VC06, failing to maintain a lane within the normal flow of traffic in VC05, or even failing to use reasonable care in VC08, disrupting the flow of traffic in VC13, and creating hazardous traffic conditions in GC02, however, it is clear that when viewing the totality of the circumstances behind this incident, the numerous apparent violations that took place from the start of Mr. James being observed going 59+ km/h over the speed limit through his abrupt stop in the middle of the highway would at the very least indicate willful negligence from the defendant.
As a result of this assessment, it is the assertion of this court that the defendant's excessive speed, when combined with the various traffic infractions of failing to yield to law enforcement officers and creating an imminent hazard in the roadway, likely to cause significant damage to property and/or bodily injury to nearby travelers, or an ambulance attempting to rush to or from a patient within close proximity of Pillbox Hospital, would indicate a disregard to life and/or property.
Finally, the court points to the defendant's statement given immediately after being pulled over, claiming that he had to hurry home when asked why he was speeding around. This, in conjunction with the aforementioned conduct by the defendant, establishes the "guilty mind" that requires the defendant to have acted intentionally in order to be found guilty of the charge being sought.
As such, it is the court's finding that the totality of the defendant's actions do constitute an intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road vehicle.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
On the count of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, I find the defendant, Martin James, guilty.
The court thanks all those involved for their patience while this matter has been under review.
Acting Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
