Jump to content
JameZ

Egils Priede v. The People [11/03]

Recommended Posts

ybpo8xbw

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

 

 


 

Criminal Appeal Petition

Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos

 

Egils Priede

 

Subpart 1. Personal Information.

 

Date: 03/11/2018.

Full Name: Egils Priede.

Contact Information: N/A.

Plaintiff Legal Representation: Iveanna Lawrence.

 

Subpart 2. Appeal.

 

The plaintiff, Egils Priede appeals the following:

  • Felony Reckless Evading. (TF001)

Under the pretense of:

 - The court has made an error.

 - The verdict does not support the weight of the evidence.

 

Subpart 3. Narrative.

 

On the 11th of November, 2018. Egils Priede was convicted in court of Grand Theft Auto (GF015) and Felony Reckless Evading (TF001), where no evidence was present of Priede endangering/causing harm to anyone's life or property. The judge accepted a motion for a summary judgement based on the current evidence at that time, who misinterpreted the legal definition of the charge being appealed (TF001), which by that definition set a precedent that allows prosecutors to charge people with the aforementioned charge if they endanger their own life. Additionally, no evidence in the case was presented that proves Priede edangering anyone's life, neither any witnesses that can support the allegations given.

 

Subpart 4. Evidence.

 

Exhibit 1. 

 

The State v. Egils Priede

 

Spoiler

 

 

Exhibit 2.

Definition of Felony Reckless Evading (TF001) per the SA Penal Code.

 

Spoiler

uO4u3Z9.png

 

Subpart 7. Declaration.

I, Iveanna Lawrence, affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

(( @ThatGuy @bartman @EvilScotsman ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We may begin, if the plaintiff wishes to elaborate on their argument, the floor will be granted to them first. Additionally, let's use our time wisely and submit any information that you believe is necessary to make your case now rather than later on in the case."

 

(( @JameZ @Zebulon ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your honor,

 

The narrative given in the original appeal explains mostly everything. In addition to this, the plaintiff would like to add that no substantial evidence was present that shows Mr. Priede engaging in any behavior that endangered anyone else's life, which can be affirmed by both footage & narratives given. The issue we have at this point is more of a statutory interpretation by presiding judge during the criminal trial, which going off on the literal rule sets Mr. Priede eligible for the charge if he hurt himself, this sets a precedent which allows prosecutors to charge individuals if they endanger their own life while in the process of eluding, which would be completely absurd and nonsense. The plaintiff would like the court to bear in mind the original trial & penal code definition given in Exhibit 1 & Exhibit 2."

 

(( @ThatGuy @Zebulon ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

The Defense motions for immediate dismissal on grounds that; Within the Officer's narrative the accused had ' got involved into a minor MVA at Temple, LS where the pursuit ended', TF001 indicates that damage to property, or posing a threat to, is enough to constitute the charge being pursued in court, and the Plaintiff has failed to offer any substantial evidence to suppress the officer's sworn affidavit as evidence against their client.

 

The Defense offers the following copy of the arrest report affidavit:

Spoiler

ddfbc7f65de5c6a32f23ce60bc7f3eec.png
 

 

Your Honor, this case is based on a fallacy, simply put."

 

(( @ThatGuy @JameZ ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Objection, your honor.

 

The officer in question was not even present when Mr. Priede ended up on the hood of the vehicle, which invalidates that statement, therefore the plaintiff would like the court to review the evidence and motion for a suppression of that statement. Furthermore, no substantial evidence was given that shows Mr. Priede eluding and causing damage, as shown in the dashcam footage. How can officer Evans know what exactly happened if she was not there? 

 

Additionally, dismissing this case would allow that case to sit, allowing a precedent for prosecutors to charge people with TF001 if they hurt themselves while in the process of eluding a peace officer."

 

(( @ThatGuy @Zebulon ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your honor,

 

In the original judgement by Justice Nolan, it has been mentioned that the bike was driving at 40MPH when the MVA occurred, which by the judge's opinion constitutes a reckless manner. However, there has been no evidence that Mr. Priede has been driving at such speed when the MVA occurred, and this was a mere speculation rather than a fact, as no police officers neither any speed radars can confirm this, contrary to the original speed Mr. Priede was riding at prior to the pursuit. Additionally, the plaintiff would like to re-state the fact that allowing the original judgement to stay would create a precedent that misinterprets the aforementioned charge, which would leave a great loophole that can be easily abused by prosecutors in the future."

 

(( @ThatGuy @Zebulon ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Jezups Berzins would take a seat, after couple minutes Jezups would lift up his right hand and says*

- He's name is Egils, not Eglis by the way, but it's okay honor

- Egils you will be free!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RobisP said:

*Jezups Berzins would take a seat, after couple minutes Jezups would lift up his right hand and says*

- He's name is Egils, not Eglis by the way, but it's okay honor

- Egils you will be free!!!

*Jezups would be escorted out of the courtroom and banned from returning into the galleries by the Bailiffs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I thought I already made clear my opinion on the loophole you originally brought to this court's attention. Would you care to clarify exactly what the loophole is that you are referring to if I apparently did not address it? To touch on the other claim of no evidence that your client was driving that speed, there was evidence provided in both the form of radar information and the officer's testimony showing that your client was going above the speed limit and it was already established that the context in which the officer interacted with your client was one where he fled, thus, clearly showing that your client was driving above the speed limit. Finally, there is no requirement in the statute for a specific speed threshold to be met or maintained during any specific period of time. It is my determination that Justice Nolan is correct in finding your client guilty of Felony Reckless Evasion."

 

(( @JameZ ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your honor,

 

The radar information present was the original speed of the motorcycle when apprehended by police officers as affirmed in their narrative. There is no evidence nor any sworn statements that mention anything about Mr. Priede's driving behavior when the MVA occurred. And just to reiterate, the loophole that has been mentioned was merely the misinterpretation of the crime definition in the penal code by Justice Nolan, which I'm afraid will create an easy path for a precedent to be set based on a wrong definition of the alleged crime."

 

(( @ThatGuy ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your honor,

 

What you have previously mentioned in your answer to the motions provided, which I'll recite: "causing threat to life" should not apply to the perpetrator. It's quite obvious that is not the intent of the statute." With this being said, the original ruling would allow prosecution in the future to charge individuals with Felony Reckless Evading if they endanger their own lives, which could basically apply to minor speeding during elusion."

 

(( @ThatGuy ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Very well, the plaintiff's appeal is partially granted. The appellate court agrees the language of "Evading or eluding a peace officer and causing damage to property or life or posing a threat to property or life." does not include the life of the perpetrator, however, causing damage to property and posing threat to property was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and thus, the charge in question will not be overturned because other portions of the statute are fully satisfied for it to be valid."

 

katherine%20vanderbilt%20signature.png

 

(( @JameZ - Thanks for the interesting appeal, I'll go ahead and archive this. ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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