#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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense states that the question here is whether or not the individual was operating the vehicle. The defendant in his own narrative states "i pulled over". Therefore, as the defense stated, the defendant was "steering, accelerating, braking and maneuvering the vehicle."
  
  The prosecution asserts that this operation of the vehicle was showing intentional "disregard for life and/or property" as he had an individual in the trunk. The prosecution has provided the expert witness statement to show how even driving in a vehicle with a roll cage, and not wearing a helmet, can be dangerous. The car shown in the photos has a roll cage, two people in the front seat without helmets, and an individual scrunched in the back. The prosecution once again references the dangers illustrated in the expert witness statement in regards to the individual in the trunk. As the defendant was driving and in operation of the vehicle, he is liable for the dangers he poses to his passenger when he steers, accelerates, breaks, and maneuvers.
  
  As the defendant was in operation of the vehicle, he had the opportunity to not operate the vehicle. Instead he had the option to wait until the individual exited the trunk. That way all individuals could travel safely from point A, to point B.
  
  We believe the judge to know and see reason in the rendering of the verdict as it is clear that no reasonable person could believe it would be safe to have an individual riding in the trunk unless it was absolutely necessary. The defendant has provide no dire reason as to why the individual was mushed in the trunk, and therefore we can only assume the defendant was acting recklessly. Thank you for hearing our case.
  
  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 defense once again asserts that the penal code definition for Reckless Operation states "Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle." Operating involves steering, accelerating, braking, and maneuvering the vehicle. In no way, does the presence of a passenger in a trunk, relate to any of the above-mentioned, therefore, it does not meet the definition of Operation.
  
  That is all the defense will say and will now await the court's decision.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Defense Attorney
  Wood Law
  ☏ 295-6979

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  The purpose of this notice is to let you know that a decision will be published no later than June 2nd (Sunday).
  
  Thanks for your patience and understanding.
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Kevin Reyes
#24-CM-0012

A decision was reached in the above case on the 11th day of June, 2024.

The Court extends a sincere apology to the parties of the case for the 9 day delay presented in the submission of this verdict.

Pre-Trial Proceedings
On the 17th of November, 2023, the matter of #24-CM-0012 State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes reached this court as a result of a criminal appeal filed by the defendant, with the intention to challenge the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle levied against the defendant on the 17th of November, 2023.

Discovery Phase
Upon activation, the prosecution submitted five (5) exhibits of evidence.
Exhibit #1 contained the arrest report filed on the defendant on the 17th of November, 2023. The report contains a narrative of the events that took place on the 17th of November revolving the arrest of the defendant Kevin Reyes. This exhibit allowed the Court to learn that the events leading to the arrest of the defendant originated as a traffic stop of a black vehicle that belonged to an individual with a suspended drivers license. Upon approaching the vehicle, the offers managed to conclude that a person was laying down inside the trunk space of the vehicle, which is designed to hold two occupants. Upon further questioning, the police concluded that the person inside the back of the vehicle was there willingly.

The defense challenged the contents of Exhibits #2 and #3, arguing that there was a lack of relevance in regards to the evidence presented in Exhibit #2, and thus, should be removed from the docket. The prosecution did not contest the defense’s request and the presiding Judge suppressed the bodycamera footage and the final portion of the Witness Statement provided by Detective I Mikael Cowell, considering that it had no relevance to the case.

As for Exhibit #3, the defense argued that it consisted on Hearsay arguing that “[Sergeant II Rija Luigi stated] that she only gained (…) knowledge from speaking to the detective”. The Prosecution opposed the request of the defense, and the Court ruled partially in favour of the defense, thus ordering that only the first portion of the statement be suppressed.

As a result of the previous suppressions, the remainder of Exhibit #3 and Exhibit 4 provided witness statements of the officers that participated in the events that led to the arrest of the defendant Kevin Reyes.

Exhibit #5 contained an expert witness statement provided by Viktor Markov, Master EMT and Interim Assistant Head of AMU within the LSEMS at the time of presenting their statement.
The Statement, which was uncontested, allowed the Court to conclude that:

• The EMS advises against civilians transporting injured people in the trunk of their cars, but it is acceptable in extreme situations.
• Transport of patients that have received life-threathening conditions must be done by EMTs in am ambulance.
• The vehicle in question had limited interior and trunk space, which contributes highly to the risk of transporting a person in the trunk.
• The roll cage of the vehicle can cause significant trauma, should a person hit their head upon a rough movement.
• Bodies inside trunks can be ejected out of the vehicle at any given time.
• Upon a rear end collision, the risk of surviving is little to none.
• Overall, a passenger inside a trunk with no access to standard safety measures for vehicle travel is more prone to injury. Because nothing is securing them in place, their body will tumble around, while their neck and spine will endure severe whiplash. Being tossed around in a moving vehicle could lead to fractures in limbs, torso, spine or head.

Summary Judgment
On the 1st of May, the prosecution presented a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the narrative revolving the presence of a third passenger inside of the trunk of the vehicle that the defendant Kevin Reyes was driving. The defense did not object the Motion and thus, the presiding Judge ordered the parties to present closing arguments.

The prosecution argued that a traffic stop was performed on an individual and upon approaching it, it was made clear that an individual was being housed in the back of the vehicle, situation which -as previously stated- was not contested by the defense. With that in mind, the Prosecution argued 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).

The defense argued that the conduct describedf in VM03 implies that the way of driving -understood as the handling of the vehicle- shows a conscious disregard for life or property, in other words, that accelerating, braking and maneuvering the vehicle are the only conducts that, if accompanied by disregard for life or property, can constitute VM03.
The defense’s arguments revolved around the prosecution’s inability to prove that Kevin Reyes was operating the vehicle recklessly.

The prosecution opposed the arguments presented by the defense by stating that it was proven that the defendant was driving the vehicle and subsequently pulled over -situation that is uncontested and of knowledge to all the parties, the Judge and the docket-, which would imply that the defendant did steer, accelerate, break and maneuver the vehicle. In other words, the prosecution argued that the defense’s conditions of the verb operate were met.

The defense ultimately closed their arguments by stating that the presence of a passenger in a trunk does not meet the definition of Operation.

Considerations & Conclusion
As expressed by the parties and by the Court when allowing the Motion for Summary Judgment, it is undisputed that Kevin Reyes was discovered operating a vehicle with a passenger seated beside him in the front passenger seat and an additional passenger inside the trunk of the vehicle. Additionally, it was established that the vehicle was in motion prior to being halted by Police Detective Mikael Cowell. These circumstances raise the question of whether this conduct constitutes VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, given the apparent disregard for the safety and well-being of the passengers, particularly the one in the trunk.

Upon evaluating VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, it is noted that this charge involves operating a vehicle, either on the road or in marine environments, in a manner that is dangerous and lacks due care. The offense specifically requires an intentional disregard for life and/or property, indicating a willful or conscious decision to act in a way that poses significant risk or harm to people or property. With that in mind, recklessness implies a high degree of carelessness or indifference to the safety of others, extending beyond mere negligence to a blatant disregard for potential consequences. Furthermore, the offense necessitates demonstrating that the defendant consciously ignored the risks involved in their actions, showing a deliberate choice to engage in dangerous behavior.

The intentional aspect is crucial, requiring evidence that the defendant was aware of the risks but chose to proceed regardless. It has been proven, as a result of the statement provided by the person in the trunk of the vehicle, that they were located in such compartment of the vehicle willingly and with the knowledge of the defendant. In other words, Kevin Reyes was indeed aware of the risks that the circumstances posed and chose to proceed.

Operating a vehicle with a passenger in the trunk demonstrates a significant and intentional disregard for the safety and well-being of that individual, clearly fitting the definition of recklessness. This action not only deviates sharply from reasonable and safe driving practices but also endangers life, satisfying the criteria established inside the Penal Code - VM03. The vehicle was confirmed to be in motion before being stopped by Police Detective Mikael Cowell, further substantiating that the reckless behavior occurred during the operation of the vehicle. Therefore, it is determined that Kevin Reyes' conduct constitutes VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.


Verdict
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, Kevin Reyes, guilty.

In accordance with Judicial Branch policy, the defendant shall be required to pay a fee of $25,000 to compensate the court for its time, effort, and resources expended during the case.

So ordered,

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