#23-AP-0006, Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas

Locked
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

#23-AP-0006, Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image
Image
Appellant Name: Tony Fontaine
Appellant Attorney(s): Oscar Sparrowhill, Cyrus Raven
Image
Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine
Presiding Trial Judge: Honorable Hugh R. Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:
  • [X] Before Verdict
    [ ] After Verdict
Image
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
  • [X] Motion to be overturned
    [ ] Errors in the trials procedure
    [ ] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
    [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence
Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)
  • The Defense believes that part of the ruling made on the motion to suppress, specifically Exhibit #2 (see HERE) is not in line with previous rulings in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals that have established precedent on what evidence is allowed under the hearsay exceptions and the court's view on directly quoting individuals outside of the courtroom.

    The decision by Honorable Hugh R. Allgood concludes:
    As per your Court Decision in #23-CM-0024, State of San Andreas v. Doris Murray, in combination with the court's rules of evidence (2.6.10), "For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, or to show that the speaker could speak a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener, is admissible." This is direct testimony from the Officer recalling a statement they heard. The Officer is not making a statement about what was specifically said, merely that some information was relayed over the radio. Since the Officer was there at the time of the details they are describing, the proper foundation has been laid. As such, this suppression should be denied.
    Judge Allgood cites the rules of evidence, specifically section 2.6.10, stating ''For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, or to show that the speaker could speak a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener, is admissible.''. However, looking at the full paragraph, the following is stated.
    Testimony not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is, by definition, not hearsay. For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, or to show that the speaker could speak a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener, is admissible.
    In the case of #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine, Exhibit #2 is testimony that is being offered to prove the truth of a matter. (Whether or not the Defendant communicated to someone over radio that an Officer was alone). Furthermore, Exhibit #2 goes on to directly quote a statement made out of court. As per the Rules of Evidence, ''Hearsay is considered untrustworthy because the speaker of the out-of-court statement did not make the statement under oath and is not present in court to be cross-examined.''.

    To conclude, this issue has had precent set in the past:
    Additionally, a ruling by the Court of Appeals under #23-AP-0003, Rachel Pilota v. State of San Andreas concluded:
    In previous court cases, precedent has been set by the court that witness statement are not covered under the exception to hearsay as a witness, even if a public employee, cannot quote what someone outside the courtroom has said.
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0006, Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas

Post by Judith Mason »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION


IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas
#23-AP-0006

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 31st of March, 2023.


The case of the Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0006.

The appellant is 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 received, the respondent will be given seven days to respond with any legal arguments of their own.

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 one of the parties in this appeal have failed to submit their brief within the allotted time, the court will make a decision based on the information it has available.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0006, Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Written Brief
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    In addition to initial arguments at the start of this appeal. The following brief outlines in a bit more detail our issue with the ruling. This was originally sent to all parties involved in the case as a way to solve this issue outside the Court of Appeals.

    The Defense's issue is with the direct quote and the following words ''referring to me being alone'' as it is being used to prove the truth of the matter stated (That the Defendant allegedly called out on his radio regarding the Officer's position and quantity).

    Our interpretation of ''Testimony not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is, by definition, not hearsay. For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, or to show that the speaker could speak a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener, is admissible.'' within the rules of evidence is that it is in relation to testimony that justifies a behaviour by the listener. An example.
    • Peter is accused of Robbing the Fleeca Bank opposite Pink Cage. As part of their case-in-chief, the prosecution asserts that Peter was seen masked near the bank, a common attire worn by bank robbers.

      Peter introduces during discovery a statement made to him by his friend Jack, earlier that morning, where he says ''I heard a nasty variant of the flu was going around, better cover your face''. This statement is not being used to prove the truth of the matter stated(that there was a ''nasty variant of the flu''). Instead, it is being used to introduce a statement that explains Peter's reasoning for having a mask.

      In other words, Jack's statement is not hearsay because Peter is not trying to prove the truth of the matter asserted; He is not trying to prove there was a nasty flu going around. He just wants to show he had a legitimate and exculpatory reason for wearing a mask that day.
    In our case. We believe the statement "Yo guys, back alley, one guy" referring to me being alone. falls all within hearsay as it is an out of court statement being offered by the prosecution to prove the truth of the matter stated, that the Defendant was on his radio calling out the position of the Officer.

    If the statement submitted was ''While he was at gunpoint and on his knees, he made a callout over his radio.'' we would be fine with it and would have no point of contention.

    Having said this, if the court and prosecution are in agreement with the above argument. Instead of our original suppression request covering the following statement:
    he callouts over his radio, "Yo guys, back alley, one guy" referring to me being alone.
    we would be open to only the following portion being suppressed:
    "Yo guys, back alley, one guy" referring to me being alone.
    which would still allow the prosecution to assert that Officer Joseph Sanchez heard a radio call-out without referencing what was allegedly said. Later down the line, if we choose to call the witness to the stand, they are more than welcome to cross-examine and directly ask the Defendant if he said something or not.

    Additionally, we apologize for exceeding the 150 word maximum limit set by this court in our initial filling. This will not happen in the future.

    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0006, Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-AP-0006, Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Honorable Mason,

    Firstly, the Prosecution frowns at the form error as submitted by the Appellant, yet subsequently accepted by the Court. It is evident the word limit has been surpassed in the grouds for appeal section.

    In relation to the appeal as filed by the Appellant, the Prosecution notes that the attempted suppression relates to the following in relation to hearsay:
    he callouts over his radio, "Yo guys, back alley, one guy" referring to me being alone.
    Under the general hearsay rule - and as stated by the Appellant - the statement made by the Defendant over the radio would be considered hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. the officer stating that the Appellant called over the radio that he was by himself.

    As you are aware, for police officers in their line of duty, an exemption exists to testify in court about certain out-of-court statements made by individuals during the course of a criminal investigation. Utilizing this exemption, a police officer may testify about statements made to them by, including but not limited to, a witness of a crime, a victim of the crime, or the committers of said crime itself. The very idea behind this exemption is that police officers are often required to rely on such statements in order to investigate crimes.

    Per generally accepted criminal law principles, in order for the hearsay exemption to play part in the underlying case, the statement must meet certain requirements:
    • 1. The statement must have been made by the Appellant during the course of a criminal investigation. The Prosecution notes that this investigation is obvious in the underlying case.
    • 2. The statement must have been made to the police officer that is testifying in the underlying court case. The Prosecution notes that the officer stated this in his official witness statement and thus, was testifying in the underlying court case.
    • 3. The statement must be offered only as an element of the crime. The Prosecution notes that the particular statement does not serve a stand-alone function but is to be described as an element of the crime. This is because the statement supports the earlier proven facts that the Defendant was indeed not held hostage but rather an active part in the crime.
    The Prosecution further urges the Court of Appeals to take into account the following facts:
    • 1. The statement was made by the Appellant themselves actively committing the crimes, rather than a third party not involved in these crimes.
    • 2. The statement was made during the course of the ongoing crime.
    • 3. The statement was made over a radio that provides a reliable record of the statement. Radios are a primary form of communication with much less risk of miscommunication or misinterpretation over its primary purpose.
    • 4. The purpose of the statement was clearly to coordinate the commission of the crime.
    Following the above, the Prosecution can only conclude that the hearsay exemption on this particular statement should apply. As such, we formally request the Court of Appeals to deny this appeal and refer this case back to the Superior Court.


    Respectfully,


    Attorney General
    Director of Public Notary
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0006, Tony Fontaine v. State of San Andreas

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


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. Defendant
#23-AP-0006

A decision was reached in the above case on the 18th day of April, 2023.


In the underlying case of #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine, the presiding judge initially denied a Motion to Suppress a portion of the witness statement from Officer Joseph Sanchez, stating "he callouts over his radio, "Yo guys, back alley, one guy" referring to me being alone." Upon reconsideration of this decision, the Motion to Suppress was amended and granted to apply only to the statement, "Yo guys, back alley, one guy."

Within the original decision and subsequent revision issued in the Superior Court, the presiding judge asserted that testimony which is used to show that a statement was said or heard is generally admissible and that the Superior Court believes the witness should be permitted to testify generally about hearing a statement being made without it falling under hearsay.

The appellant, in this case, argues that the prosecution is using that out-of-court statement to prove that the defendant was on his radio calling out the position of the officer, and thus, falls within the definition of hearsay. The appellant further argues that they would be willing to move forward with only a suppression on the statement of ""Yo guys, back alley, one guy" referring to me being alone."

The respondent, on the other hand, argues that the statement made qualifies for a hearsay exception, asserting that the statement does not serve a stand-alone function and is instead offered to support the notion that the defendant was utilizing his radio to allegedly coordinate the commission of a crime.

In order for a specific statement to be considered hearsay and be subject to suppression, the statement must be made out-of-court and be offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. As further explained in the Rules of Evidence Section 2.6.10 and additionally referenced by the presiding judge in the Superior Court, "Testimony not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is, by definition, not hearsay. For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, or to show that the speaker could speak a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener, is admissible."

This court has found that the direct quote ("Yo guys, back alley, one guy.") being offered by the prosecution through the witness statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter within the statement, as the subject matter of the statement is simply that there was allegedly one guy in the back alley. As the prosecution is not using this statement to prove that there was or was not one guy in the back alley, and instead, is using this statement to show that the defendant was utilizing a radio to communicate with another person, this court has found that the direct quote is not considered hearsay.

To address the previous precedent brought forth by the appellant, the referenced statements which had been suppressed were dealing with statements which were being offered to prove the truth of the matter alleged in the statement. As such, they would be subject to suppression - for example, one had been offered to prove that a specific person was the one that was shooting (#22-CM-0057) and another being that an individual was fully aware that they were evading (#23-CM-0001). These statements being used to prove that what was said is true would fall under the definition of hearsay.

The key difference in this case is that the statement being offered of one individual being in the back alley is not offered to prove if there was one individual in the back alley - it is being offered as evidence that the individual was utilizing their radio to communicate with another individual at the time of the incident.

With that said, this court has found that the interpretation provided by Officer Sanchez that the defendant was "referring to [him] being alone" would be subject to suppression as that specific statement is alluding to an assertion that the defendant was directly referring to him. As the officer does not have personal knowledge that the defendant was in fact referring to him and is instead offering an interpretation of what the defendant may have been referring to, the statement "referring to me being alone" would be subject to suppression. The witness is welcome to testify as a witness to what they have directly experienced, however, this interpretation of the statement is speculative in nature and shall be suppressed.

To conclude, the court has found that the statement "he callouts over his radio, "Yo guys, back alley, one guy"" provided by Officer Joseph Sanchez is not hearsay, and therefore, is not subject to suppression, however, the interpretation of "referring to me being alone" shall be suppressed. The original decision in the Superior Court is hereby affirmed in part and the revised decision is reversed.

The case is now remanded back to the presiding judge in the Superior Court with the instructions to vacate the suppression of "Yo guys, back alley, one guy" and issue a suppression on the statement of "referring to me being alone."


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

Return to “SAJB - Archived Appeal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests