#25-CM-0007, State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman

[Al Triton]

Defendant Name: Stevie Scotsman
Defendant Phone: 3689162
Defendant Address: N/A
(( Defendant Discord: stevie_scotsman ))
Requested Attorney: Al Triton

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 26/JUNE/2024 10:32:57
Charge(s):

• DM01 - Possession of a Schedule I Controlled Substance
• DM03 - Possession of a Schedule III Controlled Substance
• DF05 - Manufacturing a Controlled Substance

Narrative:
Mr. Scotsman would like to dispute these charges.

---

I, Al Triton, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Judith Mason]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 26th day of June, 2024.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 20th of January, 2025.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman is hereby activated by this Court under #25-CM-0007.

Both the State and Defendant in this case are still awaiting adequate representation. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned for the Defendant and a State Prosecutor has been assigned to the case and both parties inform the court they are ready to proceed.

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall require an in-person trial. Once all pretrial matters have been resolved, a Notice of Scheduling will be issued to arrange an appropriate time for trial.

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Daniel Carmello]

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. Defendant

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the Day of Month, Year.

I, Daniel Carmello, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant(s), Stevie Scotsman, in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel/Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Interim Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

[Veneris Kalashnikov]

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. Stevie Scotsman

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 21st of January, 2025.

I, Veneris Kalashnikov, a Junior Prosecutor with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Veneris Kalashnikov
Junior Prosecutor
San Andreas Judicial Branch
222-7759 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A court order was entered in the above case on 21st of January, 2025.

The case of #25-CM-0007, State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.

So ordered,


Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Finlay Mcculloch]

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. Stevie Scotsman

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 23rd of January, 2025.

I, Finlay McCulloch, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Roberto Sanchez, in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Court Clerk / Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 274-4300 - [email protected]

[Veneris Kalashnikov]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 20th of January, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Stevie Scotsman, 26/JUN/2024

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department ARREST REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Stevie Scotsman
      Phone Number: 3689162
      Licenses Suspended: Yes
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Lieutenant II Samuel Martin
      • Deputy Chief Lex Roth
      • Police Detective I Edward Linton
      Charges:
      • DM03 - Possession of a Schedule III Controlled Substance
      • DM01 - Possession of a Schedule I Controlled Substance
      • DF05 - Manufacturing a Controlled Substance
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Incident Date: 26/JUN/2024
      
      Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • STAFF-30 [Samuel Martin, Lex Roth] spotted Stevie Scotsman at a secluded location, after further surveillance was conducted Samuel Martin spotted Stevie Scotsman manufacturing narcotics on tables located inside Grapeseed.
        
        Samuel Martin watched the suspect pick up narcotics from the tables, run away from the tables and hide the narcotics in a bush. The suspect was witnessed by Samuel Martin doing this twice in two different bushes. The first bush has 14x Cocaine stashed inside and the second bush has 4x Cocaine stashed inside.
        
        Stevie Scotsman was arrested and found with 11x Marijuana Plants, 9x Sulfuric Acid, 8x Powdered Lime on him at the time.
        
        **4x Cocaine in the bush**
        **14x Cocaine in the bush**
        **Tables used to manufacture narcotics**
        **Suspect using tables**
        
        **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #1**
        **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #2**
        
        **Suspect in the bush were 4 cocaine was found**
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: 18x Cocaine
        Exhibit B: 11x Marijuana Plants
        Exhibit C: 9x Sulfuric Acid
        Exhibit D: 8x Powdered Lime
        
        
        Legal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: n/a
        
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  

• Exhibit #2: Surveillance photos, 26/JUN/2024

  1. **4x Cocaine in the bush**
  2. **14x Cocaine in the bush**
  3. **Tables used to manufacture narcotics**
  4. **Suspect using tables**
  5. **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #1**
  6. **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #2**
  7. **Suspect in the bush were 4 cocaine was found**
     (())

• Exhibit #3: Witness Statement - Police Lieutenant II Samuel Martin, 01/JUL/2024

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 26/JUN/2024

  Witness Information

  • Name: Samuel Martin
    Date of Birth: REDACTED
    Phone Number: REDACTED
    Occupation: Police Lieutenant II, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • At the time I (Samuel Martin) was partnered with Lex Roth. Stevie Scotsman was spotted at a secluded location. An investigation was conducted at the time, which led to the discovery of Stevie Scotsman manufacturing narcotics.
    
    I (Samuel Martin) watched Stevie Scotsman manufacture narcotics and leave the narcotics in multiple bushes. In total 18x cocaine was found in the bushes. I (Samuel Martin) approached the suspect and placed him under arrest.
    
    Stevie Scotsman was found with 11x Marijuana plants in his possession during a search.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Samuel Martin, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
    
    Signed,
    
    
    Samuel Martin
    Police Lieutenant II
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 01/JUL/2024

  

Veneris Kalashnikov
Junior Prosecutor
San Andreas Judicial Branch
222-7759 — [email protected]

[Daniel Carmello]

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

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 25 of January, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Stevie Scotsman, 26/JUN/2024
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #1**
  **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #2**
  **Suspect using tables**
  **Suspect in the bush were 4 cocaine was found**

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    There are four pictures here that I will speak about individually. Starting with the 1st picture **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #1** This picture does not show anything that looks even close to related to this case. You are unable to see any sort of bush in this picture. You are also unable to see any description of a person. The only thing you see is an orange heat signature. This piece of evidence should be removed for the fact that is holds no relevance to this case. This picture could be of any person in any area in any bush or even kneeling on the sidewalk. We are unable to tell because the evidence shows no sort of surroundings.
    
    Moving on to the second picture that should be suppressed, **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #2** This piece of evidence also holds no relevance. Even when zooming in you are unable to tell if that is my client, Stevie Scotsman, or if that is another person. The distance in this picture makes it difficult to tell if this is my client at all. Additionally, we are unable to tell if this bush is the same bush that was found in the other pictures where the drugs were found. The pictures I am referencing to are **4x Cocaine in the bush** and **14x Cocaine in the bush** We are unable to see if this bush that the "suspect" was running out of is in fact the bush in the other two pictures. This could be a random bush at a Los Santos park. We are unable to understand the surroundings due to the tree blocking the way and the zoomed in picture.
    
    The next picture we will be requesting be suppressed is the picture showing a **Suspect using tables**. Again from the distance and fog, you are unable to tell if this is actually my client. This picture is very zoomed out and all you can see is a man in his underwear looking at a clipboard in an area where you cant even see any tables near him. Showing this to the court could create an unfair prejudice. This picture paints a better picture of the lab that they are stating my client was at, yet once again my client is unable to be seen in this picture. You are unable to match anything to his picture in the mugshot. Skin color is off because of the fog, the picture is so far away from the suspect that you are unable to point out any hair color, and there are no tables near this "suspect" in this picture. This picture should be removed as the description of this picture could cause unfair prejudice in court.
    
    The last picture we will be requesting be suppressed will be **Suspect in the bush were 4 cocaine was found**. When looking at this picture I want you to tell me what you see? I see a top half of a blurry person which is once again indefinable because of how blurry, zoomed in, and foggy this picture is. Once again you are unable to see if this is the bush that the drugs were found in because of how zoomed the picture is and you are unable to see if the person in the distance is actually my client. Additionally, because this picture is so far back, you are unable to see if the suspect is standing in the bush or behind it. This picture could be considered optically merged. We will never know because the surveillance pictures are so far away and the lens they put on their camera was not far enough. We can't see my client dropping anything in this bush and because this picture could possibly be optically merged, there are multiple different ways this picture can be perceived and therefore I believe this picture could also cause unfair prejudice in court.

• Exhibit #2: Surveillance photos, 26/JUN/2024
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #1**
  **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #2**
  **Suspect using tables**
  **Suspect in the bush were 4 cocaine was found**

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    We will be retaining the same argument made in our efforts to suppress these same pictures in exhibit #1.

Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

[Veneris Kalashnikov]

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

---

Rebuttal

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 26th of January, 2025

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Rebuttal, and requests the following to be left;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Stevie Scotsman, 26/JUN/2024
  Requested Evidence, Rebuttal:

**Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #1**
**Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #2**
**Suspect using tables**
**Suspect in the bush were 4 cocaine was found**

• Detailed Reasoning:
  I would like to discuss each of the presented images individually. Starting with the first picture
  "**Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #1**".

  You are also unable to see any description of a person. The only thing you see is an orange heat signature. This piece of evidence should be removed for the fact that is holds no relevance to this case.

  If you look more closely, you will notice the shape of the bushes. Therefore, the photograph is consistent with the witness statement. Police Lieutenant II Samuel Martin states:

  I (Samuel Martin) watched Stevie Scotsman manufacture narcotics and leave the narcotics in multiple bushes.

  Furthermore, according to the witness statement Samuel Martin watched the defendant, which proves that the person in the photo is Mr. Scotsman. This piece of evidence should not be removed because that is holds relevance to this case.
  
  Moving to the second picture, **Suspect using tables**.

  Again from the distance and fog, you are unable to tell if this is actually my client. This picture is very zoomed out and all you can see is a man in his underwear looking at a clipboard in an area where you cant even see any tables near him.

  As I previously stated Police Lieutenant II Samuel Martin watched Mr. Scotsman. Therefore, I do not believe there has been any mistake because the tables are clearly visable, and we can see a man in his underwear using these tables, the picture does not depict any other individuals. It follows that the individual depicted in the picture is Mr. Scotsman. In my opinion this piece of evidence should not be removed because it is important for next photographs.
  ((On an OOC note, the tables were desynced due to the distance and the picture doesn't just show the defendant using /panim clipboard, but was using the drug table WI, as such the tables were still RPly present and being used by the defendant.))
  
  Moving to the third picture **Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #2**

  Even when zooming in you are unable to tell if that is my client, Stevie Scotsman, or if that is another person. The distance in this picture makes it difficult to tell if this is my client at all.

  In the photo we can see a man in his underwear, as I mentioned earlier, regarding the second picture a man in his underwear is Mr. Scotsman. In the photo we can see Mr. Scotsman running away from the bushes.

  I (Samuel Martin) watched Stevie Scotsman manufacture narcotics and leave the narcotics in multiple bushes.

  Later narcotics were found in the bushes. It is shown in the picture **14x Cocaine in the bush**.
  
  Moving to the fourth picture **Suspect in the bush were 4 cocaine was found**.
  At first, we can't see anything, but if you zoom in, you can see a man in his underwear. We can clearly see that he's in the bushes. As I mentioned earlier the witness statement says that the defendant left the cocaine in the bushes.
  
  The prosecution believes that all the pictures are important to the case and should not be removed. The witness statement says that Police Lieutenant II Samuel Martin watched the defendant and in all of the pictures we can see the same man in his underwear. All evidence points to Mr. Scotsman as the individual depicted in the photograph. The combination of the photographs, the witness statement and arrest report offers a complete narrative of the events of 26th of June 2024.
  
  
  Veneris Kalashnikov
  Junior Prosecutor
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  222-7759 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Thank you to both parties for your responses. Would the defense like to respond to the prosecution or should the courts proceed? If there is no response in the next 24 hours, the court will rule accordingly.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Daniel Carmello]

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

---

Surrebuttal

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 29th of January, 2025

The defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Surrebuttal;

**Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #1**

The Prosecution contends that this image is relevant because it purportedly matches the witness statement. However: The image does not contain established identifying traits that associate the person with the Defendant. But a heat signature alone is not an identifier. The scenery is indistinguishable; one cannot pin the place and time. Without further corroborating data, this image is speculative and prejudicial and should be suppressed.

**Suspect using tables**

Despite the tables not being visible, the Prosecution claims that the image depicts the Defendant using drug tables at this time. This claim is flawed because: The image is too blurry and distant to be identifiable. The Prosecution keeps saying, 'We can see a man',' but they never showed evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that this man is the Defendant. Without tables or other visible actions indicating the steps of drug manufacturing, the composite is misleading and prejudicial. This picture does not match up with the witness statement either. As stated in the previous picture, there are no surroundings in this picture. I have no clue what lense these officers used but they left out every bit of the surroundings in each picture. You are not able to tell if this is the grapeseed drug lab that the officers are talking about. One last time I have to say, you are unable to see if this is my client. The prosecution has not argued against that either. Samuel Martins statement means nothing to this picture if you can't tell if it is my client and you are unable to see any sort of drug tables that this "suspect" is using. Samuel Martin never stated when he saw my client do this. He never stated that my client was arrested after this picture was taken. We have no clue if Samuel Martin even took this picture.
((OOC note: I have spoken with admins in the past regarding situations that are linked with desync. I was told, "You can only RP what you see." These tables are not able to be seen in any of our eyes, meaning you can not RP that they are there.))

**Suspect in the bush where 14 Cocaine was found #2**

So, the Prosecution argues that since the individual in the photo is wearing underwear, then it must be the Defendant. However: Clothing is not a surefire way of telling. The Prosecution presupposes continuity between images without establishing a direct connection between them. There is no video of the person hiding drugs in the bushes. Once again, there is not a shred of direct evidence to support the assertion that "all evidence points to the Defendant." It is never stated that my client was arrested only wearing underwear. It is never stated that my client was arrested right after these pictures were taken. We have no time frame on these pictures or who these pictures were taken by.

**14x Cocaine in the bush**.

The prosecution wants to continue to use this statement to justify these pictures. There is nothing showing that this bush is in the lab. There is nothing showing that this bush was the one my client in. There is no background of the picture. There is just a bush. A bush that has illegal substances in it that could be anywhere. Officer Martin never says anything about my client being found in that exact bush, nor do they mention where these bushes were located in the drug lab. This picture could be of a random bush in Los Santos down grove street. We would never know because there is nothing proving this picture is a bush that my client was in.

**Suspect in the bush were 4 cocaine was found**

The Prosecution argues that if you zoom in, you see the Defendant in the bushes. This is problematic because: The picture is still blurry and not at all in focus. The Prosecution again says, “We can see a man,” but never shows any evidence that points to this man being the Defendant.

Conclusion

The Prosecution's rebuttal is based upon assumptions and speculation and not evidence. The picture does not definitively identify the Defendant, indicate location, or illustrate any direct connection to narcotics. At great length and several times, they tell the court: “We can see the man” but the Prosecution performs no analysis to support the proposition that the man the witnesses can see is, indeed, Mr Scotsman. Just because one sees “a man” does not mean it has already proved to be “the Defendant.” Until proven beyond a reasonable doubt, such evidence is considered unreliable and inadmissible.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court GRANT the Motion to Suppress and preclude the disputed evidence at trial. We respectfully rest on this issue and await the order of this Court.



Court Clerk / Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 274-4300 - [email protected]


Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A decision was reached in the above case on the 7th day of Month, 2025.

The court respects the position of the defense in their request. We understand the idea that the pictures do not illustrate their title. However, these pictures were contained within an arrest report within the context of the defendant's arrest and were directly referenced in the arrest report. The court either has the choice to believe the arresting/recording officer or charge them with perjury/contempt.

The court agrees with the prosecution's argument that the individual in the majority of the images appears to be the same person in their underwear. We understand that at times images can be blurry, heat signatures, or pictures of substances in bushes. However, the officer asserts that he maintained contact of the individual and photographed the drugs in evidence.

As the defense has produced no evidence that would allow the court to believe the officer is intentionally misleading the court, therefore we will be denying the defenses motion to suppress in full.

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 13th of February, 2025.

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.

In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.


Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Daniel Carmello]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense has submitted their availability. We will wait for further instructions from the judge.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 313 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 15th of February, 2025.

I, Terence Williams, Attorney General of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will represent the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will take responsibility as Co-counsel and await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Veneris Kalashnikov]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution has scheduled their availability.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Veneris Kalashnikov
  Junior Prosecutor
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  222-7759 — [email protected]

[Piper Johnson]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman


A Notification of Change in Counsel was filed in the above case on the 15/FEB/2025

Please be advised that effective immediately, Piper Johnson will assume the role of Co-Counsel in the above-referenced matter. All future correspondence, filings, and communications should be directed to their attention.

Should you have any questions or require clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out.



Senior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 480-1442 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

NOTICE OF TRIAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A trial date was set on the above case on 16th of February, 2025.

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 8:00 PM on 1st of March, 2025 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


So ordered,


Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Stevie Scotsman
#25-CM-0007

A decision was reached in the above case on the 1st day of March, 2025.

The facts of the case are as follows. The Lieutenant at that time, Samuel Martin, witnessed an individual manufacturing drugs. He proceeded to take surveillance pictures of the event through various lenses. He watched the individual for a period of time until that individual was apprehended. The LSPD then proceeded to investigate the bushes the defendant walked into and found processed narcotics as well as ingredients on the defendant.

Precedence works on the side of the prosecution for this case in terms of the arrest report and witness statement. The defense has failed to provide evidence law enforcement was not telling the truth. In the event the court was to determine an officer lied, we would subsequently looking into criminal charges. That is not the case in State of San Andreas v. Stevie Scotsman or previous cases, as shown below.

#24-CM-0018, State of San Andreas v. John Chapel (Pauls)

• Judge Antonio McFornell states, "The prosecution has presented evidence consisting mainly of an arrest report and a witness statement. These two pieces of evidence, or their authors, were not impeached by the defense, and the prosecution correctly argued that the Court could not conclude that these do not contain truthful statements without finding their authors guilty of perjury, contempt of court, among others. The Court believes that through these statements, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that John Chapel was identified at a group of events that led to him being asked to pull over with cause, orders that were not followed."

However, the court does find the lesser included offense doctrine is in violation. Specifically, the charge DM03 - Possession of a Schedule III Controlled Substance is included as part of DF05 - Manufacturing a Controlled Substance. The court finds that to be guilty of manufacturing a substance, you must also have to posses or have possessed ingredients to make said illegal substances. In this specific case marijuana would be considered an ingredient of the controlled substance found on scene and therefore covered under the lesser included offense doctrine as argued by the defense.

The prosecution correctly proved the defendant manufactured and possessed the final product, cocaine, through constructive possession and the witness statement of the defendant.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

• On the count of DM03 - Possession of a Schedule III Controlled Substance, I find the defendant, Stevie Scotsman, not guilty.
• On the count of DM01 - Possession of a Schedule I Controlled Substance, I find the defendant, Stevie Scotsman, guilty.
• On the count of DF05 - Manufacturing a Controlled Substance, I find the defendant, Stevie Scotsman, guilty.

The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $3,500 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.

So Ordered,

Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]