Jump to content
Unitts

[STATE] The People v. Dale Walker [12/18]

Recommended Posts

scosa%2520new%2520shadow.png&key=855de59

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

 


 

Criminal Arraignment

Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos

 

The People

 

Versus

 

Dale Walker

 

 

Subpart 1. Title.

 

In the matter of the Petition of The People, on the 18th of December, 2018, against Dale Walker.

 

Subpart 2. Body.

 

The People charge the subject(s) with:

 

TF006 - Felony Street Competition

TF007 - Felony Public Endangerment

WF009 - Possession of an Illegal Weapon

 

 

Are multiple misdemeanors stacked for a felonious conviction?

No

 

Subpart 3. Request.

 

The People demand of the subject Dale Walker to the following:

 

7 Years (7 Days)
Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollar Fine ($12,500)

 

Subpart 4. Evidence.

 

 

Exhibit. 1

Dashcam footage from YANKEE-93 

 

Exhibit. 2

Arrest Report Narrative on the situation.

Spoiler

qW2945l.png

 

 

Exhibit. 3

Evidence report from San Andreas State Police

Spoiler

VH8thrc.png

 

 

Exhibit. 4 

Impound report for Mr. Walker's vehicle.

Spoiler

yuOVP6I.png

 

 

 

Subpart 5. Narrative.

 

 

The case against Dale Walker was forwarded to the District Attorney's Office on the grounds that the Defendant had violated San Andreas laws specifically, Felony Street Competition, Felony Public Endangerment and Possession of an Illegal Weapon. The Prosecution wishes that the court review the evidence held against the defendant, and come to a swift judgment regarding the allegations against them.

 

 

Subpart 6. Recommendation.

 

Parole Recommendation After Release

No

 

Grant Early Release

No

 

Release on Bail

No

 

 

Subpart 7. Declaration.

 

I, B. Nelson, District Attorney for San Andreas affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

Edited by Unitts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Very well, I shall now be displaying a Notice of Action, how does the Defence wish to respond to the following?"

 

Spoiler

ybpo8xbw

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

 


 

Notice of Action

Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos

 

Notice is hereby given that the People, in the above-named case, has filed a criminal complaint pleading against you. The complaint was filed with the Criminal Court of San Andreas on December 18th, 2018.

 

You are officially being charged with the following:

  • TF006 - Felony Street Competition

  • TF007 - Felony Public Endangerment

  • WF009 - Possession of an Illegal Weapon

Within 72 hours, you must provide an answer, or response, to the claim(s) enclosed with this notice (attached to this notice). You must file your answer, in addition to any motions (if any), within that same time frame. If you fail to do so within the time frame, a default judgement will be entered against you. There will be one more attempt to contact you before the default judgement is entered.

 

Your response must contain your pleading in the matter, which could be one of the following:

 

Guilty

You plead guilty to some or all the crimes listed.

 

Not Guilty

You plead not guilty to some or all of the crimes listed, a will ensue.

 

No Contest

You do not formally plead guilty but you acknowledge the prosecution will likely prevail and choose not to contest the prosecution.

 

In addition, you may strike a plea deal with the prosecution, in which you can, for example, plead guilty for a lesser punishment.

 (( @Unitts @PixelCreations @Wright ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

On the 16th of December Trooper Monroe was responding to a 911 call regarding vehicles moving at excessive speeds on Route 27 near Angel Pine. Shortly after this call Trooper Monroe was stationary in the parking lot just off the highway when two vehicles passed doing excessive speeds. Trooper Monroe straight away pulls out onto the highway and begins following when you see the blue Mercedes AMG GT R overtake recklessly switch into the left lane to overtake the red Nissan GT-R. The footage from Trooper Monroe's vehicle can be found in Exhibit. 1.

 

Upon Mr Walker being arrested it was discovered that he was in procession of a canister of MACE. According to the SALT Act Section 402 it states that Devices, firearms or other implements able to be legally possessed and used only by qualified law enforcement are non-lethal explosive devices or projectiles and Lachrymatory devices or projectiles. Lachrymatory meaning to cause tears which is what MACE does. Therefor Mr Walker was processing a weapon he was not allowed to possess. The evidence report for items taken from Mr Walker can be found in Exhibit. 3.

 

The Prosecution believes with all the evidence its evident that both individuals were street racing. Its also evident that Mr Walker was carrying a weapon he is not legally able to possess."

 

@Urshankov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Erik Olsson looks as if he's thinking this over deeply in his mind before responding with a smirk.*

"Well, your Honor."

 

"I would first like to begin by stating that the 911 call did not specify any model, make, color, or vehicle type. Therefore, there is no way of knowing if these two vehicles are the one which was mentioned by a 911 caller. We believe that it's unfair to assume these vehicles were racing simply because they were travelling at high speeds.

 

Additionally, "numerous" vehicles insinuates that there are many drivers partaking in this behavior. I would not consider two vehicles to be "numerous" and again, there is no way of knowing if these are the same two vehicles."

 

"Furthermore, for a felony street competition charge to be valid one must provide proof of an organized or otherwise premeditated illegal street contest. The prosecution has offered no proof of this so we ask that this charge be dismissed."

 

"To continue, I would like to argue that my client did not partake in public endangerment. To make this argument I would like to cite case law from The People v. Huw Edwards. In this case, we discover that Huw Edwards was travelling 150 mph in a 56 mph zone in the Downtown district of Los Santos. Mr. Edwards ripped through the major intersection between St. Lawrence street and Pasadena boulevard without a thought of yielding to traffic. Huw Edwards was not charged with TF007 and instead was charged with reckless driving and did not have his vehicle seized."

 

According to the facts of the case, had a vehicle pulled out in front of Huw Edwards in the intersection, it would have taken him 1075.24 feet to stop. However, the Justice handling the case decided it was not an acute risk. Surely then in this case where my client was going slower than Huw Edwards, is not guilty. If Huw Edwards can go this fast through an intersection in Downtown Los Santos and not be charged for TF007, nor have his vehicle seized, then my client simply speeding on a vacated road is far less serious than what Huw Edwards did.

 

As for the firearm charge, we believe this to be fruit of the poisonous tree as the arrest was not valid given the reasons I just stated and should also be dismissed."

 

"And to conclude, I would like to point out that in the footage provided there was no dangerous lane switches or illegal over taking as alleged in the narratives."

 

(( @Urshankov @Unitts @PixelCreations ))

Edited by Wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I see.

 

Whilst I do find the precedent of The People v Huw Edwards to be bizzare, I do believe that it is of the upmost importance to look at the individual circumstances of each event. In the Defendant's circumstances here, all that can be proven is that he was travelling above the speed limit, however, this area is much more rural than the location Mr. Edwards' offence took place, and I may be inclined to agree with this.

 

Further within the precedent overruled in the case of Eglis Priede v, The People, as noted by Chief Justice Vanderbilt, that 'posing a threat to property or life' cannot mean that of the Defendant, who at the time was evading Law Enforcement. I too, am unable to locate a point in the dash-cam clip provided that can be considered an illegal overtake or a dangerous lane switch, and so the narrative is the only form of evidence of such. And so, I am inclined to follow the precedent established by Justice Ross in the case of Edwards.

 

I must add that penal code for Felony Street Competition states "Planned, organized and otherwise premeditated illegal street contests", meaning there must be some form of mens rea must be present, and so far, this Courtroom has only been presented with the actus reus. Unless there is evidence that displays this, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was some form of planning or organisation, then I may have to dismiss the individual charge.

 

Though, does the Prosecution have anything further to present as evidence to this courtroom, or perhaps wishes to modify the charges set against the Defendant, at which point I could dismiss the former and present a new Notice of Action?"

 

(( @Unitts @PixelCreations @Wright ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your honor,

 

The prosecution believes that there is clear evidence for the charge of Felony Public Endangerment as seen in Exhibit. 1. In the case of The People V. Huw Edwards from what I'm aware there was nobody around for him to endanger where in this case the defendant put Mr Nikolaou at considerable risk by doing excessive speeds switching between lanes. A crash at them sort of speeds can cause devastating injuries and damage your honor and this is why the prosecution believes that the Felony Public Endangerment charge is appropriate in this case. 

 

The prosecution does not have any further evidence towards the Felony Street Competition charge."

 

(( @Urshankov )) 

Edited by Unitts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The prosecution may believe there is clear evidence of the charge but the Judge ruled against the DA's office."

 

"Additionally, client did not switch lanes from the footage provided and he was quite a distance from the lead vehicle as well. If my client was to have crashed then he would have only harmed himself, and given the precedent from Eglis Priede v, The People, my client should not be charged accordingly. There was no one else on the road and that stretch of road is far away from people and infrastructure such as homes, businesses, etc."

 

"Furthermore, given that the prosecution has no further evidence for felony street competition we ask that the charge be dropped and my client have his vehicle returned to him as it was seized."

 

(( @Urshankov @Unitts @PixelCreations ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"With the current evidence provided I shall have to state that I do currently have the position of innocence, though I shall refrain from judgement on that until it concludes, as further evidence may come to light.

 

However, I am torn as to the degree of danger. Whilst we can see that there is another vehicle being operated on the road, it is hard to determine if the operator is truly in danger or not, and infact, if that danger to his life was a culmination of his own speed. In the case of Edwards, the 'could have' argument was not deemed sufficient enough to prove danger. In the words of Justice Ross:

 

"there must be decisive evidence that a -major- risk to the public was presented by the actions of the Defendant"

 

I must ask for further clarification, were any legal penalties or charges put against the driver of the other vehicle?"

 

(( @Unitts @Wright @PixelCreations ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ah, yes, thank-you for jogging my memory.

 

I do see that a plea deal was struck, excluding what is arguably the most serious traffic offence - may I ask why this was excluded? I shall also be taking note of the fact that Mr. Nikolaou was charged with Street Competition and so any further evidence, such as a written or recorded statement by him would be helpful in determining whether or not the alleged offence did in-fact take place."

 

(( @Unitts @Wright ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor, I would like to add that Mr. Nikolaou took a plea deal and did not even attempt a defense, which in our opinion, shows the police force had a lack of evidence for TF007 as you mentioned and felt the only thing that could stick with ease is what he plead guilty to in a plea deal. This only strengthens our argument in our minds that all these charges carry weak evidence to them."

 

(( @Urshankov @Unitts ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your honor, the Prosecution doesn't have any statements from Mr. Nikoalou, he simply accepted a plea deal for them charges acknowledging his wrong doing in that case. The reason why the Prosecution suggested to exclude the felony endangerment charge is that Mr. Nikolaou didn't really endanger anyone like Mr. Walker has but regardless of that charge being excluded Mr. Nikolaou was willing to plead guilty to the street competition charge. 

 

The police force did not have a lack of evidence for TF007 as the law states "placing the public in acute danger and or putting a major risk to public safety through unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, firearm, etc." the Prosecution believes what Mr. Walker did was placing a member of the public in acute danger by passing at well over 100MPH in snowy weather conditions."

 

(( @Urshankov ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In that circumstance, Mr. Nikolaou would have to appeal to have his conviction decided by another Justice, most likely Chief Justice Vanderbilt, as I had handled his prior case. Although, I shall be looking over Mr. Edwards' case to determine the factor in which Justice Ross made his decision, but it appeared to be the fact that Prosecution could not prove that an individual example of life could not be proven to be at risk, of which one is here, Mr. Nikolaou.

 

However, we must now ask ourselves if Mr. Nikolaou's actions put himself in the dangerous circumstance, but I do not think that with the evidence currently at hand I would be able to make what could be considered a reasonable judgement and I do believe that it would be beneficial if either of the two parties were able explain the circumstances in greater detail. As noted within the case of Eglis Priede it is not constituted if one puts their own life at risk and dependent on the factors, it could be contributory, if, for example, one driver had utilised their breaks suddenly and without good cause, creating a collision - legally it is the fault of the breaking driver.

 

I do not doubt that the speed and weather conditions are dangerous, but what we are focusing on is did Mr. Walker put Mr. Nikolaou at harm, or had Mr. Nikolaou contributed to his own harm, or infact caused the 'acute' amount of harm upon himself fully.

 

In order to make a legally sound judgement I shall require a written statement or testimony from either of the individuals at the scene otherwise I do not feel that all the facts had been properly presented and then examined.

 

This is a necessity if we follow the Federal Rules of Evidence as the State of San Andreas has not adapted its own standards in dealing with such a situation."

 

(( @Wright @Unitts ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"My client invokes his right against self incrimination, your Honor. However, the facts of the case are that the other driver was in a lane by himself, ahead of my client. Had this driver braked it would not have caused any harm and the highway was vacant at the time. If he was to get into an accident, he would have harmed only himself as there was no one else to hit or any infrastructure to break, etc. There was no danger present for my client to pose."

 

(( @Urshankov @Unitts ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Very well, that is fair and such a suggestion was a mere opportunity to provide further contextual evidence, though, this is not something that I can force upon anyone without neglecting my duties and oath.

 

At this moment in time I do not see how the acts of the defendant put Mr. Nikolaou in any potential harm if he were 'overtaking' as described earlier, showing, if anything, wilful intent to avoid such a collision or danger. To the depth of my knowledge, 'acute' is defined as 'severe or intense', and I believe that for future judicial matters should be clearly displayed as somewhat subjective, as this is what the case of Mr. Edwards, Mr. Nikolaou, and of course, Mr. Walker has shown to be a critical issue. This overtaking may be suitable under the defence of necessity, an attempt to prevent a collision or any harm towards other road users - of which there was only one.

 

If said 'potential victim' of the alleged 'danger' were putting themselves in that position of danger, then is it fair to claim that the Defendant was fully, or even partially responsible? I do not think so. 

 

I have taken some time to ponder the thought, and many states and other western nations. The States of Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia have adopted a similar stance when it comes to a concept of the defence often described or referred to as 'contributory negligence'. Whilst this is a civil concept, it acts within a similar way to the defence 'mistake of fact', drawing from the doctrine that a person may not be liable if they could not form any reasonable intent to commit the crime - though, with the State Legislation, the amount of mens rea is not specifically highlighted, and so for the purposes of further decisions, we shall state that it does not require intent and can be done recklessly.

 

Of course, Mr. Walker's driving could be considered 'dangerous' to a degree, factoring in the speed and conditions on the roadway, but as Justice Ross had summarised, it is not substantial enough to state that someone 'could have' put another in danger through his or her actions and must, in-fact, display that they did put another in danger. Following Mr. Nikolaou's plea of guilt to the Street Competition charge, I believe that it is near evident that he had put himself in 'acute danger' by supposedly agreeing or organising some form of race - though, these events are disputed in this case seeing as neither party is willing to make a statement on such.

 

I must ask, does the Prosecution have any further evidence, judicial or legislative examples in which are contradictory to Justice Ross' statements so a precedent can be drawn from either of the case examples, preventing the necessity to appeal, as the most suitable precedent can be applied to this unique situation as several legal doctrines and principles are up for interpretation?"

 

(( @Unitts @Wright ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and follow our Guidelines.