#23-CM-0089, State of San Andreas v. Summer Haze

[Summer Haze]

Defendant Name: Summer Haze
Defendant Phone: 356-6399
Defendant Address: 58 Diamond Casino Apartments
(( Defendant Discord: N/A ))
Requested Attorney: N/A if none

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 06/JUL/2023 19:15
Charge(s):

• VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle

Narrative:
I was wrongfully charged.

---

I, Summer Haze, 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. ))

[Shaun Harper]

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. Summer Haze

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 6 of July, 2023.

I, Shaun Harper, Deputy Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Summer Haze in the underlying case.

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


Deputy Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[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. Summer Haze

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 13th day of July, 2023.

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.



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

[Jay Garbanzo]

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. Summer Haze

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 27 of July, 2023.

I, Jay Garbanzo, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Summer Haze, in the underlying case.

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



Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 523-3622 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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. Summer Haze

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 4th of September, 2023.

I, Kendall Groyce, a Prosecuting 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.



Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 9th of September, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Summer Haze is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0089.

Both the State and Defendant have adequate representation in the case, as such, immediately following this notice, the Presiding Judge will be filing the Order for Discovery.

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall operate under the docket trial format, and once the Notice of Trial has been issued, all arguments and evidence examination shall take place on the public docket.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A court order was entered in the above case on 9th of September, 2023.

The case of #23-CM-0089, State of San Andreas v. Summer Haze 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.




Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 15th of September, 2023.

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 of Summer Haze, Los Santos Police Department
  Spoiler

  

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement of Mike Luigi, Los Santos Police Department
  Police Sergeant Mike Luigi Witness Statement

  

• Exhibit #3: Body Camera Footage, Mike Luigi
  Body Camera Evidence

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqc1vFZEp2I
  
  ((RP Proof - https://i.imgur.com/Jft5rEG.png ))

Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A decision was reached in the above case on the 19th day of September, 2023.

The defense has now had over seventy-two hours to file any motions they might have in this case. Since no motions have been filed on their behalf I will continue this case under the assumption they do not wish to file any. I will also be changing the venue of this case from a docket trial to an in-person trial. If there are no objections to this court decision I will be be attempting to schedule trial immediately following this decision.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on the 19th of September, 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.

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) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A decision was reached in the above case on the 21st day of September, 2023.

Due to no overlapping availability for the next three weeks as indicated in the scheduling tool I will be changing the venue of this case to a docket trial so we can move this case along and conclude it within a timely fashion. I will be allowing 24 hours to allow for any response by either party if they disagree with this decision. Additionally, if no response or a Motion for Continuance is posted within the next 24 hours I will be commencing the docket trial procedure.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 21st of September, 2023.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Requirement of additional time to prepare for trial
  • Detailed Explanation: I request additional time to prepare for the trial of this case as I'm currently involved in another on-going trial that is consuming a lot of my time daily as we move through the trial via docket-trial. I believe it would be unwise of me to have to split my time between these cases and I don't feel I will best represent the State of San Andreas trying to adjust to the new docket trial workload if I'm consumed with two on-going cases at once.

Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 29th of September, 2023.

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

• Exhibit #4: Additional Witness Statement and Body Camera Footage of Mike Luigi, Los Santos Police Department
  Police Lieutenant Mike Luigi Additional Witness Statement and Body Camera Footage

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: #23-CM-0089
    Incident Date: 06/JUL/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Mike Luigi
    Date of Birth: 07/JAN/1997
    Phone Number: 381-5045
    Occupation: Police Lieutenant

  Witness Statement

  • To add on to my previous statement as it was brought to my attention the Jugular has come into question. After detaining Summer Haze at the Casino Apartment Garage the Jugular, that Summer Haze can be seen parking within my provided bodycam footage, was retrieved from the garage and impounded. The Jugular retrieved from the garage is the exact same vehicle that can be seen driving reckless on Hawick Avenue moments before.
    
    Jugular LP: MRSHAZE

    

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Mike Luigi, 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,
    
    
    Mike Luigi
    Police Lieutenant I
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 23/SEP/2023

  
  

Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 1st of October, 2023.

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

• Exhibit 4: Additional Witness Statement and Body Camera Footage of Mike Luigi, Los Santos Police Department
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  The entire exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    We respectfully request the suppression of Exhibit #4, the Additional Witness Statement and Body Camera Footage of Mike Luigi, on the grounds that it was submitted in violation of the court's previous order for discovery.
    
    The court's order for discovery was issued on the 9th of September, 2023., mandating the prosecution to provide all evidence within seven days. However, Exhibit #4 was submitted on the 29th of September, well beyond the deadline stipulated in the order.
    
    This evidence should have been part of the prosecution's original motion for discovery. Its belated submission deprives the defense of adequate time to examine and prepare for its inclusion in the trial.

Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A decision was reached in the above case on the 13th day of October, 2023.

Before the Court is the Defenses Motion to Suppress Exhibit #4, which includes an additional witness statement and body camera footage provided by the prosecution. The Defense asserts that this evidence should be excluded on the grounds that it was submitted in violation of the Courts prior Order for Discovery. The Court has carefully considered the arguments presented and hereby renders its decision.

The Courts Order for Discovery, issued on the 9th of September, 2023, unequivocally mandated the prosecution to provide all evidence within seven days. Exhibit #4, comprising an additional witness statement and body camera footage from Mike Luigi, was submitted by the prosecution on the 29th of September, well beyond the deadline stipulated in the order. This much is undisputed.

It is well-established that compliance with court orders and procedures is fundamental to the fair administration of justice. The purpose of discovery is to ensure that both parties in a legal proceeding have equal access to the evidence, thereby promoting fairness and transparency in the trial process.

Upon reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the prosecutions submission of Exhibit #4 outside the prescribed time frame was a violation of the Courts explicit Order for Discovery. The prosecution had ample opportunity to include this evidence within the initial Motion for Discovery and, by failing to do so, they have placed the defense at a disadvantage by depriving them of adequate time to examine and prepare for its inclusion in the trial.

The Court acknowledges that the prosecution may have had valid reasons for not including Exhibit #4 in the initial motion for discovery, such as obtaining it at a later date. However, the Court emphasizes that adherence to court-ordered timelines and procedures is essential to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. While the prosecutions duty is to pursue justice, they are also obligated to operate within the bounds of fairness and transparency.

In light of the above, the Court finds that the prosecutions submission of Exhibit #4 outside the established timeframe contravenes the Courts Order for Discovery and is inconsistent with the principles of fairness and procedural regularity. Consequently, the Defenses motion to suppress Exhibit #4 is granted.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 13th of October, 2023.

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

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report of Summer Haze
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Vehicle, Purple Jugular LP: MRSHAZE, was clocked going 176 eastbound on Hawick Ave... then tracked down to the Casino Apartment parking lot where Summer Haze was found exiting the vehicle.

  • Detailed Reasoning: A police radar does not show the license plate, registered owner of the vehicle, make, or model. The Prosecution has not provided CCTV to prove the other claims made in the arrest report. Therefore leaving the only statements that are fact in the police report to be "The vehicle was pursued" and "Summer Haze was then placed under arrest".

• Exhibit #2: Police Sergeant Mike Luigi Witness Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  A purple Jugular LP: MRSHAZE, was clocked going 176 eastbound on Hawick Ave

  • Detailed Reasoning: A radar gun, given to police to determine speed of vehicles, does not show the license plate, make, or model of the vehicle.

• Exhibit #2: Police Sergeant Mike Luigi Witness Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  before found heading to and being parked at the Casino Apartments. At that point in time Summer Haze was seen exiting and parking the vehicle before"

  • Detailed Reasoning: The bodycam and evidence provided does not support the claims made by the officer. The Prosecution had the ability to grab CCTV at Casino apartments to prove the statements. However, nothing provided supports the claim.

Respectfully,


Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 15th of October, 2023.

The Defendant, Summer Haze, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Primary attorney on LOA
  • Detailed Explanation: The defense attorney is going on an approved LOA soon and will not be able to respond.

Respectfully,


Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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

---

Prosecution Response

---

Honorable Daniels and all pertaining parties,

In regard to the Defense Motion to suppress, the prosecution would like to note the following.

Detailed Reasoning: A police radar does not show the license plate, registered owner of the vehicle, make, or model. The Prosecution has not provided CCTV to prove the other claims made in the arrest report. Therefore leaving the only statements that are fact in the police report to be "The vehicle was pursued" and "Summer Haze was then placed under arrest".

The Mobile Data Computer (also known as the MDC) is installed in all police cruisers, this device is not simply a radar to scan speed, but a piece of technology that is able to scan the plate of the vehicle and enter the plate into a database that then populates the vehicle model, plate, and registered owner, in addition to the speed of travel. ((If the script allows it, it's considered valid.))
With this information gained from the MDC, the officers were able to track down Ms. Haze to the location at which she was found parking the vehicle.

Detailed Reasoning: A radar gun, given to police to determine speed of vehicles, does not show the license plate, make, or model of the vehicle.

Again, the prosecution will reiterate that the MDC is not simply a radar gun, this device does include the listed features that the defense believes it does not show. ((Again, I just want to stress that this is a SCRIPT feature, and all of the information it displays upon a scan is RPly valid.))

Detailed Reasoning: The bodycam and evidence provided do not support the claims made by the officer. The Prosecution had the ability to grab CCTV at Casino apartments to prove the statements. However, nothing provided supports the claim.

The bodycam evidence does show the Jugular quickly pulling into the casino parking lot apartments, although it is only briefly seen as it is quickly parked, upon the cruiser pulling up to where the vehicle has been parked, the officer's body camera footage shows the defendant, Miss Haze, standing at the parking garage and pulling another vehicle out of the garage.



Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A decision was reached in the above case on the 30th day of October, 2023.

Before the court is the Motion to Suppress filed by Chief Public Defender Shaun Harper. The defense seeks to suppress specific evidence from the case, citing concerns about the validity of certain claims made in the arrest report and the nature of the technology used by law enforcement. The prosecution, represented by Kendall Groyce, has responded to the motion, countering the defense's arguments.

First, the defense contends that the police radar employed to clock the speed of the vehicle in question does not display essential information, such as the license plate, registered owner, make, or model of the vehicle. However, the prosecution has presented a compelling argument that the Mobile Data Computer (MDC), standard equipment in police cruisers, possesses the capability to scan license plates and populate databases with vehicle details, including the registered owner. This clarification suggests that the officer's report is more comprehensive than the defense implies.

The defense further questions the functionality of the radar device used by the police, asserting that it is limited to speed detection and does not show critical information about the vehicle. The prosecution underscores that the MDC is not a mere radar gun; it is a versatile tool equipped with features that extend beyond speed measurement. Specifically, it captures and records license plate data, vehicle make and model, and registered owner information. This argument effectively discredits the defense's assertion that the radar device lacks essential functionalities.

Finally, the defense expresses doubts regarding the accuracy of the officer's claims, particularly those concerning the defendant's actions at the Casino Apartments. The defense contends that the bodycam footage and available evidence fail to substantiate the officer's statements. In response, the prosecution highlights that the bodycam evidence does depict the defendant's vehicle entering the Casino Apartments parking lot at a rapid pace and provides visuals of the defendant's actions upon arrival. While the defense argues that additional CCTV evidence would be beneficial, the bodycam footage aligns with the officer's observations and actions, contributing to the overall credibility of the arrest report.

After considering the arguments presented by both the defense and the prosecution, this court finds no legal basis for suppressing the evidence in question. The prosecution's compelling explanations regarding the functionality of the MDC, along with the supporting bodycam evidence, underscore the accuracy and reliability of the arrest report. Therefore, the Motion to Suppress filed by the defense, is hereby denied in its entirety.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

I will be changing the venue back to a In-Person trail in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas.

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on the 8th of November, 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.

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) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Mary Burrows]

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. Summer Haze

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 12th of November, 2023.

I, Mary Burrows, Junior Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Summer Haze in the underlying case.

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


Junior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

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

Unfortunately due to further scheduling issues arising I have no choice but to once again change the venue back to a docket trial. However with the holiday on the horizon I will be holding off on initiating the docket trail until the holiday has passed so that all parties involved can focus on spending time out of the office with friends and family and not on filing arguments in a timely manner.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

A docket trial for the above case has commenced on the 5th of December, 2023.

In accordance with Docket Trial procedure established by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this trial has hereby commenced and any subsequent submissions must adhere to previously established procedure.

The prosecution now has 48 hours to present opening arguments for review by the court, and once received, the defense has 48 hours to present opening arguments of their own. Each subsequent post of this trial has a deadline of 48 hours since the previous submission unless reasonable circumstances require the use of a Motion for Continuance.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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

---

Opening Statement

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Summer Haze
#23-CM-0089

The prosecution's opening argument was filed in the above case on the 5th of December, 2023.

Honorable Judge Daniels and pertaining parties; I Kendall Groyce, on behalf of the State of San Andreas thank you for handling these court proceedings. On July 6th, 2023, a purple jugular with the license plate MRSHAZE, registered as owned by the defendant Summer Haze, was clocked going 176 kilometers per hour in an 80-kilometer-per-hour zone. The officers immediately attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but unfortunately due to the high speed of travel, they very temporarily lost sight of the vehicle. Less than thirty seconds after the vehicle was initially clocked going these reckless speeds down Hawick Ave, the same vehicle was subsequently seen pulling into the Casino Apartments parking lot and being parked at the Casino Apartments garage, where Summer Haze was then seen exiting the vehicle and pulling out a different vehicle from the garage she had just parked the jugular in.

The defendant, Summer Haze, stopped as the officers intercepted her before entering the new vehicle; she put her hands in the air and complied as they exited their vehicle to approach her, she did not tell the officers on the scene she was innocent. She accepted her arrest. This could be argued as her right to remain silent but also does not help her case due to the fact that, in choosing to remain silent did not establish an alibi for herself. The officers proceeded to identify the individual who was seen exiting the vehicle traveling at reckless speeds as that of the defendant, Summer Haze. At this point, the prosecution feels like the burden of proof was transferred to Miss Haze as she was found driving the vehicle that was clocked driving high speeds. The charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle was placed on the defendant, and the vehicle used in the misdemeanor was subsequently taken to impound by the Los Santos Police Department.





Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Mary Burrows]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
State of San Andreas v. Summer Haze
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT

---

Today, we gather here to examine the events of a day that has been marked by a series of unfortunate misunderstandings. On July 6th, 2023, an incident occurred involving a purple Jugular, LP: MRSHAZE, which has led to the charges against our defendant, Summer Haze. The prosecution alleges that Ms. Haze was involved in reckless operation of this vehicle, a serious accusation that demands a thorough and impartial examination.

As we delve into this case, it is essential to remember that the bedrock of our justice system is the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of the charges against Ms. Haze beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Let us begin by addressing a crucial point - the identity of the driver. The prosecution asserts that Summer Haze was behind the wheel during the alleged reckless operation of the vehicle. However, as we proceed through this trial, you will come to realize that there are significant uncertainties surrounding this claim.

Another key aspect that demands your attention is the 30-second period during which the police officers lost sight of the vehicle. This critical lapse raises even more questions about the continuous observation of the driver. Was it, in fact, Ms. Haze who was driving during this entire time? Or could there have been a change in drivers during this interval?

The Prosecution states that defendant was seen doing these reckless speeds on Hawick Ave. headed to the casino yet there is no evidence showing specifically that the defendant was speeding to the casino.

Additionally, it is essential to underscore that the license plate of the vehicle in question was not checked again when Ms. Haze was arrested. This vehicle was parked in a garage when the police arrested her, further muddling the picture. Was the vehicle in question the same one that had initially caught the attention of law enforcement?

The evidence will show that the decision to arrest Ms. Haze was based on a visual match of the vehicle's color, which, as we know, can be a rather unreliable identifier, especially in dynamic situations.

As we proceed through this trial, I urge you to keep an open mind. Examine the evidence critically, and consider the uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding this case. Remember, it is not enough to merely suspect Ms. Haze's involvement; the prosecution must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

By the end of this trial, we are confident that there will be a clearer and more accurate picture of the events of that day, a picture that paints Ms. Summer Haze innocent from the charges she faces. Thank you for your careful attention to the proceedings, and we look forward to presenting our case to you.

Respectfully


Junior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]