Page 1 of 1
#22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2022 1:46 am
by Dakota Macaw
[Motion for Leave to File] Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2022 4:15 am
by Emily Whitehorse
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:03 pm
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:56 pm
by Emily Whitehorse
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2022 5:42 pm
by Dakota Macaw
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:17 am
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
- Your Honor,
On behalf of the State of San Andreas, and the wonderful law-abiding citizens of this state, I, Attorney General Hugh R. Allgood, will respond to the claims made in this appeal.
First, I will concur with the amicus brief filed by Ms. Emily Whitehorse, and concur with this assessment. At the time of prosecuting this case, I was not aware the charge of Operating a Business without a License was a citation-only. It is well-settled by this court that citations are not appealable (see quote from the filing information);
the Judicial Branch does not accept any cases regarding citations
Therefore, I request the defense motion to appeal this charge to remain as is... the defendant should remain guilty of this charge as originally placed when the citation was issued, and the ability to appeal this charge vacated.
Regarding the other charge of Minor Sales Tax Evasion.
The defense's claim is that an confession without proof is not acceptable in the State of San Andreas. For this, I will state two things; (1) There is no reasonable motivation for a person to openly admit to committing a crime they did not commit. In general, it is reasonable for someone who has committed a crime to try and minimize their role/impact. (2) As stated at the trial, and I will restate here, there is proof of the facts as stated by the defendant. In this case, I believe both are true. I believe the defendant is engaged in more acts of sales tax evasion, however, to minimize her culpability, $5,000 is a low number to admit to. Not only does this constitute the lower charge of minor sales tax evasion, and results in the assessment of a lower fine, but this assertion conceals the other acts she was involved in. For analogical purposes, a person who has consumed ten beers and deciding to drive a vehicle, will readily admit to law enforcement to consuming one or two beers, in the hope this admission will conceal the other eight beers they have consumed.
I will return to my arguments made at the trial. The prosecution was limited to bank records from any dates other than 16/MAY/2022. This was a motion made by the defense, and it was awarded by the court. While the prosecution does not agree with the granting of this motion to suppress evidence, particularly this charge with statement from the defendant of performing design work for others on a regular basis constituting a continuation of acts. Ms. Teat made deposits of $80,000, $40,000, $1,682, and $1,282 on 16/MAY/2022, which is what the prosecution is limited to based on the granted motion to suppress any records outside of 16/MAY/2022. Per the defendant's own statement, the defendant admitted to pocketing $5,000. Ms. Teat's deposits total $122,964 on 16/MAY/2022.
We agreed with summary judgement that Ms. Teat had confessed to committing certain actions, but deny that Ms. Teat positively committed such actions.
This is a really at its core just a play on words. Ms. Teat confessed to committing actions which constitute the crime of minor sales tax evasion. To turn around and claim that Ms. Teat "positively committed such action" is absurd. Frankly, I do not know what the defense means by someone confessing to committing certain actions and then in the same breath denying they had committing the same actions they just previously confessed to!
We believe that because we, the defense, deny that Ms. Teat committed such actions, she was not "proven" to have committed such crimes based on her confession alone.
I would hope the defense attorney denies their clients committed a criminal act, otherwise, there would be no need for a defense attorney, let alone a court to judge a person's guilt. However, the defendant in this case admitted their guilt prior to trial, and now regrets this admission.
The only evidence that indicates the crimes to the court is Ms. Teat's confession
Negative. As shown above, Ms. Teat made four separate deposits on the day the prosecution was limited to discussing. Just because there is not a transaction in the amount of $5,000 does not mean this did not occur. Since I like analogies, if I rob a bank and get away with $7 ,685 from the bank, and on the day of the robbery, I make a deposit of $68,485, that does not make me "innocent' of depositing the initial $7,685. I have simply concealed the $7,685 within the $68,485. As I argued at trial, the $5,000 we are arguing about in this case could be easily concealable within the $122,964 in total deposits made on 16/MAY/2022.
Therefore, in summary;
It is the position of the prosecution that Ms. Teat was rightfully convicted on the charge of minor sales tax evasion, from the facts we were permitted to present in this case. Ms. Teat confessed to acts constituting this charge, and bank records confirmed Ms. Teat made several deposits well exceeding the $5,000. As stated in the trial, and in the penal code, minor sales tax evasion can occur with, or without intent.
Respectfully,
Attorney General Hugh R. Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:22 am
by Cyrus Raven
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
- Honourable Judith Mason,
I would like to address a few statements made by the prosecution.
As stated at the trial, and I will restate here, there is proof of the facts as stated by the defendant. In this case, I believe both are true. I believe the defendant is engaged in more acts of sales tax evasion, however, to minimize her culpability, $5,000 is a low number to admit to. Not only does this constitute the lower charge of minor sales tax evasion, and results in the assessment of a lower fine, but this assertion conceals the other acts she was involved in.
No link has been established through any prior investigation between the amount of money deposited on the 16th of May and any service being sold.
Let me be clear. There has been no receipts for the alleged service provided, no photos of the property in which these services allegedly happened, no witness statement corroborating the alleged offence.
If the alleged crime has been committed, why hasn't the prosecution provided any evidence of such? What property was allegedly worked on? What ''friend'' did the defendant offer these ''services'' to? Where is the purchase receipts for the furniture? Where is any communication between the defendant any this unknown person she allegedly offered this service to?
All of the above are questions which neither the prosecution nor the Los Santos Sheriff's Department has provided to the court. The most reasonable explanation? It does not exist.
For analogical purposes, a person who has consumed ten beers and deciding to drive a vehicle, will readily admit to law enforcement to consuming one or two beers, in the hope this admission will conceal the other eight beers they have consumed.
Let me complete this analogy.
For law enforcement to determine whether someone has just had 1-2 beers or 10 beers, they would have to employ the use of a breathalyser, a blood test or any other technique to determine the suspect's BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration). While they can suspect someone for lying about the amount of beers, they must employ other fact based means to determine the validity of the claim, thus arriving at the truth.
This is a really at its core just a play on words. Ms. Teat confessed to committing actions which constitute the crime of minor sales tax evasion. To turn around and claim that Ms. Teat "positively committed such action" is absurd. Frankly, I do not know what the defense means by someone confessing to committing certain actions and then in the same breath denying they had committing the same actions they just previously confessed to!
Allow me to simplify.
While we acknowledge a statement was made by the Defendant, we do not acknowledge a crime was committed or proven to have been committed. It is up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime has been committed, a sole confession would not suffice.
Likewise, someone who walks into Mission Row and yells ''I just killed a man'', would likely de detained, but in order to charge that person for murder, a bare minimum investigation would be needed to determine whether these crimes actually took place, which leads us to our initial statement ''A confession ALONE is not "proof" of a crime, and must be supported by other evidence indicating the the confession is true.''
Ms. Teat made four separate deposits on the day the prosecution was limited to discussing. Just because there is not a transaction in the amount of $5,000 does not mean this did not occur.
While this may be true, the opposite equally applies. Just because there is other transactions above the $5,000 amount does not mean that the alleged $5,000 was deposited within those larger transactions.
As explained previously, the prosecution has failed to establish a link between any of the amounts deposited on the 16th of May and this $5,000 amount, there are no receipts, no proof of money being given to the defendant, no proof of any interior design which led to the alleged $5,000 transaction and no proof of who this third unknown person who allegedly made this $5,000 payment is.
Since I like analogies, if I rob a bank and get away with $7 ,685 from the bank, and on the day of the robbery, I make a deposit of $68,485, that does not make me "innocent' of depositing the initial $7,685. I have simply concealed the $7,685 within the $68,485. As I argued at trial, the $5,000 we are arguing about in this case could be easily concealable within the $122,964 in total deposits made on 16/MAY/2022.
Once again, I will complete the analogy.
While such a situation may occur, it would still be within the prosecution's responsibilities to the court to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the $7,685 was actually concealed within the $68,485 deposit. It is not enough to simply point out a possibility, you must PROVE it. Which the prosecution and the Los Santos Sheriff's Department has failed to do.
To conclude, the Defense once again reaffirms that while a statement by the defendant was made, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime has been committed. The prosecution has failed at this by not establishing any credible link between any of the amounts deposited on the 16th of May by the Defendant, by failing to provide any evidence of a ''design service'' having taken place, by failing to provide a witness statement or proof of a third party having solicited said ''design service'' and having then paid the defendant. As such, they have not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the charges the Defendant was arrested for have taken place.
Respectfully,
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
5356160 — [email protected]
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:31 pm
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:30 pm
by Dakota Macaw
Your Honor,
I am not available for any of the given times as I am currently on an LOA until Sunday, August 14th.
Thank you,
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:52 pm
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:55 am
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2022 6:40 pm
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:58 am
by Judith Mason
San Andreas Judicial Branch
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
COURT DECISION - #22-AP-0003
IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS
Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas
#22-AP-0003
CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
GM20 - Minor Sales Tax Evasion
BLF01: Operating a Business without a License (First Offense)
A decision was reached in the above case on the 20th day of August, 2022.
- Once again, the appellant in this case is seeking an overturning of the guilty verdicts on two counts that was originally filed in Superior Court Case #22-CM-0027, State of San Andreas v. Roxy Teat. Those two counts were:
- GM20 - Minor Sales Tax Evasion
- BLF01: Operating a Business without a License (First Offense)
With regards to the Operating a Business without a License (First Offense) count, the court has determined that this “charge,” so to speak, is a civil fine, citation, or infraction that is issued by the Business Licensing Bureau of the Executive Branch of the San Andreas State Government, and as such, this court has determined that the Criminal Court division of the Superior Court of San Andreas is not the venue of appropriate jurisdiction at this time.
As established by Judicial Branch policy and further held by the Court of Appeals in Felix Newnham v. Police Department, docket #21-10-29-AP-013, “the Judicial Branch does not accept any cases regarding citations of any kind.” It is this court’s holding that the fine issued by the Executive Branch is unable to be reviewed by the Criminal Court within the Superior Court of San Andreas, and as a result, no determination of guilt for this civil infraction will be made.
Therefore, for this specific infraction, I will be vacating that decision declaring a mistrial with prejudice for the infraction due to the court not having the appropriate jurisdiction to hear a dispute of that charge. Should the defendant wish to dispute the infraction given by the Executive Government, the defendant will have to approach the Executive Government for a remedy rather than seeking one from the Judicial Branch.
When it comes to the misdemeanor charge of GM20 - Minor Sales Tax Evasion, the court of original jurisdiction held that, through a motion for summary judgment, there was no dispute on the facts of the case and that Ms. Teat had received $5,000 in payment for services rendered and, further, that she failed to pay the appropriate sales tax in relation to these services rendered.
The defense does not dispute the fact that Ms. Teat offered a “confession” in a sense by admitting that $5,000 was collected, allegedly as a donation, however, while this confession does give probable cause that a crime has been committed, it cannot be the sole evidence provided to prove the fact of the matter.
The prosecution provided bank statements that suggest money was exchanged, however, these bank statements appear to be highly circumstantial and there is not a specific transaction that can be tied to this case - it is the court’s opinion that where this money came from is disputed and only gives speculation as to a crime the defendant allegedly committed.
In order for a successful conviction to be upheld, there needs to be more information shown that backs up the claim of the crime alleged. There was simply not enough evidence in this case to prove that a crime had been committed. Just as how a judge can overrule a plea of guilty by a defendant in which there is not sufficient evidence to prove that a crime had been committed, the prosecution must prove that the confession aligns with the facts of the case and that there is a basis for the conviction.
This charge must have been proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, however, the evidence provided in this case was highly circumstantial to the point where Ms. Teat’s words were the only piece of evidence to prove the truth of the matter.
Therefore, on this charge of GM20 - Minor Sales Tax Evasion, I will also be declaring a mistrial due to the interpretation of the law that a confession is substantial enough alone to secure a conviction.
The guilty verdict issued on the BLF01: Operating a Business without a License (First Offense) is vacated.
The guilty verdict issued on the GM20 - Minor Sales Tax Evasion is overturned.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]