#24-AP-0006, State of San Andreas v. Wolfgang Bathsheba

[Terence Williams]

Appellant Name: Terence Williams
Appellant Attorney(s): Acting Attorney General Terence Williams

Trial Docket Number: #24-CM-0029
Presiding Trial Judge: Colt Daniels
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [ ] Before Verdict
  [X] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [ ] Motion to be overturned
  [ ] 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)

• In their verdict, Judge Daniels reasoned that the Prosecution did not meet the burden of proof to support the charge of NM06 - Trespassing of a Government Employee against the defendant, Wolfgang Bathsheba, following a Motion to Amend, stating the evidence only contains one (1) mention for the defendant to leave the area, concluding the evidence did not prove explicit and clear instructions beeing given to the defendant.
  
  The Prosecution argues this is not the full, nor correct, application of the charge. The penal code defines NM06 - Trespassing as " Knowingly entering and/or remaining on property without permission from its property owner/licensed manager. " It is clear from the evidence that no permission was ever given to the defendant by the Correctional Officer present to allow them into the secure processing area, an obvious violation of the penal code charge by the defendant.

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Vince Williams v. State of Wolfgang Bathsheba
#24-AP-0006

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 10th day of October, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Wolfgang Bathsheba is hereby activated by this Court under #24-AP-0006.

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.


So ordered,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Your Honor,
  
  Thank you for entertaining the Prosecution with this appeal. In this brief, we will show how the defendant, Wolfgang Bathsheba, was in violation of Penal Code charge NM06 - Trespassing (of a Government Employee) when they breached the secure processing area at the Department of Corrections, thereby proving how former Associate Justice Daniels' verdict of not guilty is applying an incorrect interpretation of the law.
  
  In the State of San Andreas Penal Code, the charge of NM06 - Trespassing was defined as "Knowingly entering and/or remaining on property without permission from its property owner/licensed manager" (pre version 22/SEP/2024). In their verdict, Justice Daniels focuses solely on one part of the law - the second part, regarding remaining on a property without permission - and fails to evaluate the other part of the law - the first part, regarding entering a property without permission.
  
  The Justice's verdict states "Regarding the charge NM06 - Trespassing of a Government Employee, the court finds that the evidence does not sufficiently support this accusation. The only mention of Wolfgang being asked to leave is a brief statement in Exhibit #2, where Sheriff Kemp notes, "I was then informed by the DOC guard that they wanted him to leave and nothing else." There is no direct evidence or testimony indicating that Wolfgang was explicitly and clearly instructed to leave the premises by the DOC guard or any other authority figure. This lack of clear communication and documented instruction to vacate the premises means that the element of willful trespassing is not sufficiently proven." From their verdict, it is clearly understood that Justice Daniels' reasoning for the not guilty verdict of misdemeanor trespassing is that the defendant was only asked to leave the area once and then did so. According to the justice, the Correctional Officer did not provide enough explicit communication and instruction for the defendant to leave the premises, and there was therefore not enough cause to constitute willful trespassing.
  
  While the defendant may be partially compliant with the second part of the law, as they left the processing area when requested and given an opportunity by the Correctional Officer and sheriff's deputies on the scene, there is no doubt that they are in clear violation of the first part of the law, by pushing past the CO and getting unwarranted access to the secure processing area at DOC. And as the definition of the charge includes "and/or", there is no requirement for both parts of the law to be fulfilled for the defendant to be in violation of it - the defendant only has to violate at least one of the parts to be able to be charged with misdemeanor trespassing, and this has been proved multiple times during the original trial. It was demonstrated in the arrest report and statements that the defendant had forcefully made their way into the secure processing area past the lobby and caused chaos inside, resulting in the defendant being tased and cuffed so they could calmly be instructed to leave. Additionally, the CCTV from the camera placed inside the lobby at DOC had an unobstructed view of the door leading from the lobby to the secure processing area, upon which are several signs with the statements "NO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS BEYOND THIS POINT - TRESPASSERS MAY BE SHOT - ID and key code required for entry", "WARNING - Police linked intruder alarm - THIS DOOR IS ALARMED", and "WARNING - SECURITY DOOR - Police Linked Intruder Alarm - Restricted Access". As was made clear in the evidence at the original trial, the defendant was not authorized to enter, nor had permission to enter. It was also discussed at trial how the defendant has been at DOC numerous times, and they knew from experience that they should not be entering this area unaccompanied or without invitation, neither of which happened in this situation.
  
  DOC lobby CCTV image stills

  
  
  
  
  Considering all the original evidence, it is clear that the defendant was indeed in violation of NM06 - Trespassing, specifically "Knowingly entering [...] property without permission from its property owner/licensed manager". Justice Daniels did not consider the full wording of the charge when delivering their verdict, as is clear from the docket, as the evidence distinctly proves how the defendant was in violation of misdemeanor trespass by entering the secure processing area without authorization or invitation.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Public Defense Division
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Your Honor,
  
  The Defense is going to keep this simple, as we believe Honourable Daniels verdict to hold it's own, especially due to his prolonged tenure and his reputable status as a judge. The verdict related to said charge was this,
  
  "Regarding the charge NM06 - Trespassing of a Government Employee, the court finds that the evidence does not sufficiently support this accusation. The only mention of Wolfgang being asked to leave is a brief statement in Exhibit #2, where Sheriff Kemp notes, "I was then informed by the DOC guard that they wanted him to leave and nothing else." There is no direct evidence or testimony indicating that Wolfgang was explicitly and clearly instructed to leave the premises by the DOC guard or any other authority figure. This lack of clear communication and documented instruction to vacate the premises means that the element of willful trespassing is not sufficiently proven."
  
  The prosecution leans heavily on the presence of signs near the secure processing area, stating that Wolfgang was familiar with DOC's layout and should have known not to enter. To my knowledge, as a defense attorney, verdicts haven't been made by speculating on the defendants mind in the past. The prosecution has presented no evidence to back up their assertion of that Wolfgang saw, read, or understood the specific warnings, however the defense has provided Exhibit 6 - a picture of the mask being worn at this time - we can clearly see how this would obstruct vision to a point where signage may not be visible.
  
  Now we want to focus on some evidence presented by the prosecution such as;

  "I was then informed by the DOC guard that they wanted him to leave and nothing else. With this knowledge, we opened the door and he was on his way."

  Not only did DOC not want to they didn't press for charges of trespassing on Wolfgang. We can also see from this quote that Wolfgang was locked in - based on the fact the deputies had to unlock the door, we can clearly see when the door is unlocked Wolfgang leaves the DOC lobby.
  
  The prosecutions whole argument in this appeal is based on speculating on the defendants mind and the words "and/or". The prosecution has used the appeal process to attempt to make more arguments and introduce more baseless evidence (They've even attempted to introduce pictures into the court) and put my client through the stress of being in prison again - because the prosecution is treating the appeal process in this way we urge the court to drop this appeal in its entirety based on the fact that the prosecution has breached the 5th Amendment of the defendant.

  No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb.

  The prosecutions attempt to introduce new arguments, new pictures shows the focus on this appeal isn't to target errors in the judges rulings but to "retry" at prosecuting the defendant. Which also goes against our appeal guidelines

  Please note, typically the only persons able to file an appeal after an issuance of verdict is the defendant or their attorney(s) due to the Double Jeopardy rule. However, prosecution may appeal a verdict based on errors in the judges rulings provided they do not attempt to introduce new evidence to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Finally, The defense could honestly keep writing forever about this appeal but we believe this enough. Today the prosecution has attempted to (1) speculate on the defendants knowledge (2) provide new evidence (3) provide new arguments (4) breach the defendants 5th amendment right. Even if the prosecution didn't do these things the verdict should still remain not guilty based on the facts, DOC didn't want to press charges (and didn't, the prosecution added these later on), Wolfgang left when he wasn't locked in and the prosecution has presented no evidence to back up their assertion of that Wolfgang saw, read, or understood the specific warnings (which they introduced into the appeal - not the case)
  
  Thank you, Your Honor.
  
  Very Respectfully,
  
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Justice McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to voice its final thoughts on this appeal and the Defense's brief before deliberation. A verdict should not carry more weight simply due to the standing of the issuing judge. A verdict should be factual and based on the law. Nothing more, nothing less.
  
  The Defense claims the Prosecution is speculating on the defendant's mind. The defendant's record is known to the court, and they testified at trial to know that they had been at DOC multiple times and that they knew they should not be in the processing area. The Defense's exhibit of the mask proves nothing regarding visibility or the defendant's ability to understand the signs present. Even without that admission of knowledge, it is more than reasonable to believe that the defendant knew they had nothing to do in that specific area. While an individual may not have been arrested for a specific charge initially, the state's constitution gives the Prosecution the discretion to file criminal charges if it believes a crime has been committed. It is then up to the court to find a defendant guilty or not guilty of the charges levied against them. Whether or not someone decides to press charges does not negate the fact that a crime was committed, and the Prosecution has jurisdiction over such investigations.
  
  The Defense is also claiming that this appeal is in breach of the 5th Amendment by prosecuting the defendant for the same crime twice. However, this is an appeal of the original case, not an indictment or a second case. As such, it is an extension of the initial case and thereby does not fall under the 5th amendment breach as claimed for either a second attempt at prosecuting or double jeopardy.
  
  The Defense's claim that the Prosecution's appeal is used to present new evidence and new arguments is wholly false. The pictures in the first appeal brief are still images taken from the CCTV footage presented at the original trial. The Prosecution also presents the same arguments as it did at the original trial, that the defendant is guilty of misdemeanor trespass when they forced their way into the secure processing area at DOC.
  
  The Prosecution firmly believes that Justice Daniels' original verdict was based on an inaccurate interpretation of the law, as argued in our brief. The defendant willfully forced their way into a restricted area they were aware they should not be in as they testified to, and the justice's failure to recognize part of the law being violated should not have bearing on the defendant's guilt.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Wolfgang Bathsheba
#24-AP-0006

A decision was reached in the above case on the 17th day of November, 2024.

The Court of Appeals must decide on the Office of the Attorney General's appeal of Justice Daniels' verdict acquitting the defendant, Wolfgang Bathsheba, of the charge of NM06 - Trespassing of a Government Employee.

The prosecution's appeal primarily rests on the contention that Judge Daniels erroneously focused on the "remaining" element of trespassing while ignoring the "knowingly entering" component of the charge as described in our Penal Code. Specifically, the Prosecution argued that Justice Daniels' examination of the case focused on Mr. Bathsheba being requested to move out of a specific location and complying, and not the fact that he should not have allegedly been there in the first place.

To the Court of Appeals, the prosecution's emphasis on the "knowingly entering" element in this particular case requires clear evidence of the defendant's mental state at the time of entry. The records, exhibits and overall evidence presented during the pre-trial and trial proceedings presents an individual whose behavior and demeanor suggest a marked lack of situational awareness and general comprehension. The evidence indicates erratic conduct and confusion rather than the deliberate, knowing entry that the Penal Code requires. To sustain a conviction under NM06, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bathsheba understood he was entering a restricted area - a burden that cannot be met by merely establishing his physical presence in the location in this specific situation.

Second, we must address a serious procedural defect in the appeal: The prosecution has attempted to introduce new evidence, specifically photographs of warning signs and access restrictions, that were not presented at trial. This was properly pointed out by the Defense and the Court of Appeals determines that this violates our established appellate procedures, which limit our review to the evidence properly admitted in the trial court and only then, when it has been unproperly examined, which is not the case either. The introduction of new evidence is appropriate only in superior court proceedings, not in appellate review.

Finally, examining the totality of evidence properly before us, this Court cannot reasonably conclude that Mr. Bathsheba knowingly entered an off-limits area within the description of NM06. While his presence in the secure processing area for brief moments is undisputed, the evidence suggests that his comprehension of his surroundings and the restrictions thereon was severely limited. The only clearly established fact is that when asked to leave, he complied promptly - hence why at the time, the arresting department did not pursue said charge. It is the belief of the Court of Appeals that the arresting officer has enough agency to determine which charges not to reasonably pursue, which they did excercise, and the Office of the Attorney General ignored that prerrogative granted to the arresting law enforcement officer when presenting their Motion to Amend.

With the above considerations in mind, to the Court of Appeals, Justice Daniels' verdict reflects a careful analysis of the evidence presented at trial and a proper application of the law. His focus on the "remaining" element was appropriate given the evidence before him, and his conclusion that the State failed to meet its burden of proof was well-reasoned taking the aforementioned points into account. That is why, after careful review of the trial proceedings and the arguments presented herein by the Prosecution and the Defense, the Court of Appeals affirms the verdict adopted by Justice Colt Daniels within the Superior Court.

So ordered,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]