San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
The State of San Andreas v. Marc Ericsson
#25-BT-0121
A decision was reached in the above case on the 20th day of December, 2025.
Arguments Made at Trial
The prosecution stated that the defendant was seen going at speeds of around 233, as noted in the arrest report. Prosecution argued that due to precedence set in the prior cases of Bongo Haze and Roberto Sanchez, the speed of the defendant met the requirement for reckless operation.
The defense, through the defendants own statement under oath, argue that the defendant was not going above 80-100 as they had just stopped at a traffic light near Pillbox Medical Center prior to going to Benny's. They also state that due to the mishandling of evidence via the editing of the arrest report date, redacting of case information, and difference between exhibit 1 and exhibit 2, the defendant could not be found guilty of the alleged crime.
Facts
Determined Facts:
- The defendant was driving a white Niobe that was pulled over by an LSSD deputy Zoe Virtue.
- The defendant was speeding.
Undetermined Facts:
- Rate of speed of the vehicle
- License plate of the vehicle
- Validity of the information provided
Verdict
The Court would like to begin by reviewing the charge of
VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle the literal definition of the charge is "intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle." The Court in order to review the charge properly must determine if the defendant acted with intentional disregard for life and/or property. The Court sees
intentional disregard in terms of the charge code VM03 requires that the defendant knowingly made the decision to conduct their behavior in defiance of multiple vehicular statues.
Moving on to the prosecutions reference to previous precedence from
#23-CM-0086, State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze and
#25-AP-0001, State of San Andreas v. Roberto Sanchez, which, at the heart of both of the verdicts, the court finds the Justices to have determined that ultimately any application of the charge VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle is discretionary in nature and highly dependent on the context of the situation.
As detailed under facts above there were two the Court could officially determine to be true and accurate. These were facts not contested by either party: the defendant was driving a white Niobe around the Legion Square/Upper Pillbox area and the defendant was speeding.
The Court finds there to be multiple facts that cannot be adequately determined given the information provided and the arguments made at trial. The Court begins by noting the difference between the date of initial creation of the report, September 15, 2025, and the date of the arrest, September 7th, 2025. The Court also notes the lack of a license plate. These factors coupled with the defendants own words contesting the speed of his vehicle, the Court cannot factually determine the speed at which the defendant was traveling.
This information alongside the mishandling of evidence by the Prosecution, creates enough reasonable doubt for the Court to be unable to find the defendant guilty of the element of intentional disregard, which is necessary for the application of the charge.
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, Marc Ericsson, not 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 $7,000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.
During the trial, the court attempted to question the prosecution as to why information was redacted from an arrest report to which they responded the felt it was encompassed in the current written documentation. The court finds there to be no mention in the Civil Code of examples of any property or personal information, instead the
Civilians’ Personal Information Protection Act specifically references "personal phone number or home address of any civilian". Members outside of the Judiciary should not be applying their own interpretation to written statues, especially in terms of a vehicular misdemeanor case where vehicular information was redacted. This will be the one and final warning the court will give to the prosecution about redacting information that could be beneficial to the defendant.
So Ordered,
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 —
[email protected]
