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. Dario Ortega
#25-CM-0008
A decision was reached in the above case on the 26th day of January, 2025.
After the defendant was detained and then arrested based on the suspicion of GM13 - Criminal Threats of a GOV, he was presented to the court. He entered a plea of Not Guilty.
Facts
The court finds there to be several uncontested facts:
- There was a pursuit.
- The defendant was found in the area where the pursuit ended.
- The area was relatively empty.
- The officer exited their vehicle and approached the defendant.
- The officer asked "what are you doing here".
- The defendant stated "If someone comes near me, I'll put a bottle up your ass".
- The defendant was in possession of a bottle.
- The defendant had recent violent felonies on their record.
Trial
The judge asked multiple questions of both the prosecution and the defendant. When the defendant was read his Miranda Rights and the admissibility of the statement "If someone comes near me, I'll put a bottle up your ass" was brought into question. Whether or not the defendant moved toward or attempted to reach for his bottle at any time was not mentioned by either side.
Verdict
The court first aimed to tackle the issue of Miranda Rights. We want to establish that Miranda Rights are required for evidence to be admissible in court during
custodial interrogation. A custodial interrogation can cover multiple different circumstances, but in general they encompass questioning that is more than likely to lead to an incriminating response or when an individual is under formal arrest.
The court determines that the question, "What are you doing here," was posed in a non-custodial context. This constitutes a non-coercive question, as it is neutral, open-ended, and does not inherently pressure the individual to provide an incriminating response.
Given the above ruling, the statement from the defendant, "If someone comes near me, I'll put a bottle up your ass" is considered admissible. The law
GM13 - Criminal Threats specifically states "knowingly and willingly threatening the life of or bodily harm onto another person, their family, relatives or loved ones." The term threatening in the law can either be plural or singular. The court rules that in terms of GM13 - Criminal Threats the word "threatening" applies to multiple (or the suggestion of multiple) threats, as in threatening that either occurs overtime (with intent to pursue after that initial encounter) or in succession.
For example, an individual making a singular threat in a statement, is just that: singular. However if that individual were to make a threat in a statement and then move towards the individual with threatening body language or something of that nature, a judge may rule that those separate actions encompass multiple threats or illustrate a form of intention.
For the purposes of this case, the court acknowledges the statement made by the defendant to be a threat, but we find the lack of follow-through, attempt at a follow-through, and apparent conviction to not be significant enough for the charge of GM13 - Criminal Threats of a GOV. More appropriately,
GC03 - Disorderly Conduct of a Gov Employee is defined as "acting in an unruly manner including but not limited to disturbing the peace, deliberate or excessive noise, nuisance style behavior, carrying an open alcohol container where it is not licensed to be served, and excessive and unlawful harassment of individuals."
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of GC03 - Disorderly Conduct of a Gov Employee, I find the defendant, Dario Ortega, guilty.
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 —
[email protected]
