San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Mason,
While the Prosecution does not object that the clear misconduct was at least non-intentional, the court decision dated February 16, 2023 goes completely past the fact that the Defense Attorneys were up to date regarding the communication between the Defendant and the party the Prosecution is representing. In fact, the Defense Attorneys as admitted by Defense Attorney Raven even instructed the Defendant to obtain a properly formatted witness statement from the Defendant:
As such, the Prosecution notes that the following:
1. The Defense Attorneys were informed of the original contact between the Defendant and the party the Prosecution is representing.
2. The Defense Attorneys did not report these findings to the court nor the Prosecution.
3. The Defense Attorneys then proceeded to instruct the Defendant to request the Witness Statement using the formal format.
4. The Defense Attorneys are willingly and consciously using the knowledge gained by this misconduct in the underlying case to try and force a Motion to Compel Discovery.
In the eyes of the Prosecution, this is an abundant breach of Section V - Relationship to the Adverse Party of the Code of Ethics. With reference to issued cases in other parts of the US (i.e. State v. McDermott in 2011, United States v. Patrick in 2017) where cases have been dismissed through knowledge and/or evidence being obtained by contacting the other party directly, the Prosecution cannot hide its disappointment of the aforementioned Court Decision. In this respect, the Prosecution also fears the obvious precedent that this Court Decision creates: if the act of consciously contacting the party the other chair is representing is not met with retribution, but in fact rewarded - in this case by clearly obtaining knowledge the Defense otherwise would not have - when and where does this conduct stop? As our court system should maintain the principle of equality of arms, and as such both parties having the same procedural rights, can the Prosecution also instruct their parties to contact Defendants directly going forward?
Following the above, the Prosecution will hereby also make known its intentions to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals in case the Motion to Compel Discovery is granted for obvious reasons.
Respectfully,
Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
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. Aya Kasumi
#23-CM-0009
A decision was reached in the above case on the 5th day of March, 2023.
The court will be granting the Motion for Discovery of the arrest report, physical evidence, body-camera footage, and statements from Deputy Hartwell and Deputy Brown.
With respect to the Motion to Suppress filed by the defense, the court will be denying the suppression filed for Exhibit 4 on the grounds of speculation as the Deputy's statement is an observation that the Deputy made based on what she saw and what could potentially be seen on the body-camera footage, which does not constitute speculation in the eyes of the court. When it comes to the suppression of the statement made in Exhibit 5, "She saw both Akio Yamada and Aya Kasumi standing inside with the mechanic tools and equipment." While the defense filed for suppression on the grounds of speculation, this statement is clearly hearsay and is covered in Deputy Hartwell's statement, therefore, the suppression of this statement is granted.
When it comes to the prosecution's Motion to Amend Charges, the court will be granting the motion in part, allowing for the charges of this case to be VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop, NM06 - Trespassing, GM04 - Resisting Arrest, GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto, and GF24 - Perjury.
The court, however, will be denying the prosecution's Motion to Amend Charges to seek VF01 - Evading an Officer primarily and VF01 - Attempted Evading an Officer subsidiarily. The court will not allow the prosecution to simultaneously seek a conviction of both the unmodified charge and the modified charge if the unmodified charge does not result in a conviction. I will allow the prosecution 24 hours to make a decision on which charge they wish to seek before moving to trial scheduling.
On the defense's Motion to Compel Discovery of Officer Rija Luigi's Witness Statement, I will be denying this motion due to the information contained within the witness statement having already been obtained by the defense improperly through improper procedure. Though it does not appear that this procedural violation had been the result of direct misconduct by the defense attorneys working with the defendant, it has nonetheless been obtained improperly by the defense and this court has determined that the information contained within the witness statement shall be inadmissible in this case.
I will, however, caution the prosecution that references to specific cases outside of the jurisdiction of the State of San Andreas are not to be submitted onto the docket in my courtroom. Any arguments that relate to the referenced cases have not and will not be taken into consideration by this court for any past, present, or future decisions. Once again, this court will not allow references to cases outside of the jurisdiction of the State of San Andreas and any further attempt to use arguments contained within such cases as binding or persuasive authority shall be met with repercussions.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Mason,
With reference to the above Court Decision dated March 5, 2023, the Prosecution would like to raise the following before answering which charge we would like to pursue in the underlying case.
As far as the Prosecution is aware, the rules of criminal procedure as applied throughout the United States as a whole permit the Prosecution to pursue two or more offenses to be charged together, provided that the crimes are of a similar character and based on the same act or common plan - the so called lesser included offense doctrine. The Prosecution notes that this lesser included offense also goes for the attempted modifier of a charge. The Prosecution fully understands the courts of the State of San Andreas and its criminal law principles are different from that of the rest of the United States. However, as this particular question has not been raised in the constitution, case law or even literature, the Prosecution hopes for your understanding of us making this comparison and raising the following question: do the courts of the State of San Andreas acknowledge the lesser included offense doctrine?
Upon receiving your answer, if then still required, we will of course provide the reply to which charge we wish to pursue as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
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. Aya Kasumi
#23-CM-0009
A decision was reached in the above case on the 8th day of March, 2022.
Upon reconsideration, the court is amending it's prior decision rejecting the prosecution's Motion to Amend Charges on the basis of the lesser included offense doctrine. Under this doctrine, the prosecution may charge the more serious offense primarily and the lesser charge subsidiarily as the greater charge implies the lesser charge.
For clarity, if the prosecution is able to prove the lesser charge but not the greater charge, the defendant shall be found guilty of only the lesser charge, however, if the prosecution is able to prove the lesser and the greater charge, the defendant shall only be found guilty of the greater charge. In either scenario, only one of the specified charges shall remain, should the defendant be found guilty of either such charge.
With that said, the charges for this case are as follows:
VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop
NM06 - Trespassing
GM04 - Resisting Arrest
GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto
GF24 - Perjury
VF01 - Evading an Officer primarily, VF01 - Attempted Evading an Officer subsidiarily
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Honorable Mason,
At this point in time, while still severely disappointed in the procedural undertakings from the Defense's side, the Prosecution wishes to move forward in these proceedings and schedule a trial.
Respectfully,
Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
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. Aya Kasumi
#23-CM-0009
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on the 17th day of March, 2023.
All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.
Be advised that this Scheduling Tool is the same as that which is posted to #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada as the court will be attempting to schedule these two trials back-to-back given that they are regarding the same situation. As such, a larger window of time for both trials to take place is required.
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.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Superior Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Parties,
Based upon the responses to the scheduling tool, I will tentatively be scheduling this trial for Sunday, March 26th at 6:30 PM (( UTC )). Be advised that this is the same starting time as the similar case of #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada. Though the cases shall remain separate, the prosecution has requested that the evidence presentation portion of these two trials be shared as the same exhibits would be displayed in each.
I would like the defense to submit a response onto the public docket if this is agreeable to your party. If so, then I will be in touch with specifics as to how this procedure will be handled. If not, then both cases shall remain entirely separate and will simply be handled back-to-back in terms of scheduling, with #23-CM-0008 starting first.
Once a response has been received, an official Notice of Trial will be issued.
Respectfully,
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
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. Aya Kasumi
#23-CM-0009
A trial date was set on the above case on the 23rd day of March, 2023.
In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 6:30 PM on the 26th day of March, 2023 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.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
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. Aya Kasumi
#23-CM-0009
A decision was reached in the above case on the 26th day of March, 2023.
On the 29th of September, 2022, a law enforcement officer with the Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department witnessed two vehicles enter the unauthorized area of Fort Zancudo Air Base. After dispatching a ground unit to investigate, two individuals were spotted in a small garage on the property of the Fort Zancudo next to a red vehicle that the prosecution asserts as stolen.
After a short bit of time, law enforcement officers gathered their resources and executed a plan of action to apprehend the two individuals and block any and all exits that may be used to flee from arrest. Upon approaching the scene, the two individuals appeared to gather up their possessions and quickly exit the garage on foot, with one individual, Aya Kasumi, proceeding to enter a vehicle and drive off, as confirmed in her witness statement.
First off, the court has found that both Akio Yamada and Aya Kasumi did not have permission to be within the gates of Fort Zancudo and, as such, are liable for the Trespassing charges they both received.
The court has also determined that, based on the evidence provided, the vehicle had indeed been stolen and transported to Fort Zancudo by one of the defendants. While it cannot be confirmed which defendant had actually stolen the vehicle, the court has determined that the evidence supports the charge of GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto for both defendants, given their collaboration in obtaining possession of the vehicle.
When it comes to the allegation of VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop, the fact pattern of the two defendants unlawfully entering a facility where they did not have permission to enter, the stolen status of the red vehicle in which they were seen in possession of, the recovered items found within their possession which have the ability to remove parts from a vehicle, and the subsequent resistance to police intervention, the court has found there to be sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are liable for this charge.
When it comes to the resisting charge for both defendants, the court has determined that despite the defendant’s claims of being scared and being unaware of what may occur during the situation at the time, it is still unlawful to physically resist apprehension by law enforcement officers and the court has found there to be sufficient evidence to support this charge for both defendants.
As for Aya Kasumi’s Evading an Officer charge, the court has found that, once again despite the defendant’s claims of being scared and the alleged regret they have for undertaking such an action, the act of evading from a pursuing law enforcement officer is unlawful and, therefore, has satisfied the requirements of the full charge of Evading an Officer.
When it comes to the GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify charge on Aya Kasumi, however, the court has found the conduct alleged to have violated this law has been covered under the resisting arrest charge - Ms. Kasumi’s action to resist arrest implies a failure to comply and as such, this conduct has already been targeted with the Resisting Arrest charge.
When it comes to the perjury allegation from the prosecution, the court has found that both defendants have claimed in their initial statements to the court that the stolen vehicle in question had already been in the garage at Fort Zancudo prior to the defendant’s arrival. The court has found this assertion to be false, given the witness statement provided by the ALPHA unit, which had witnessed the two individuals entering the facility with said vehicle. As this assertion by the defendants had the ability to affect the outcome of this trial, the court has found that both defendants had perjured themselves.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
On the count of VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop, I find the defendant, Aya Kasumi, guilty.
On the count of NM06 - Trespassing, I find the defendant, Aya Kasumi, guilty.
On the count of GM04 - Resisting Arrest, I find the defendant, Aya Kasumi, guilty.
On the count of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, I find the defendant, Aya Kasumi, not guilty.
On the count of GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto, I find the defendant, Aya Kasumi, guilty.
On the count of GF24 - Perjury, I find the defendant, Aya Kasumi, guilty.
As the defendant has satisfied the requirements for the full charge of Evading an Officer:
On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Aya Kasumi, guilty.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
