IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS CRIMINAL DIVISION
People of the State of San Andreas v.
Darwin S. Endeavour, Whesly Anthony, Thomas Gracia, Chrisstopper Levi Alexander Bailey, Mamang Rizz, Kang Cucur, Lil Pinguin, Derr P Laborro, and Lucifer Cammora
DEFENDANT'S DEFENSE MOTION
COMES NOW the Defendant, by and through counsel, and respectfully submits this Defense Motion in response to the Criminal Complaint filed on 22 April 2025.
The Defendant asserts the following defenses and arguments regarding each charge:
1. Contempt of Court:
o While the Defendant acknowledges that an attempt was made to influence judicial proceedings, the actions were based on a misunderstanding regarding the custody status of Mr. Hotman Raul Bailey. The Defendant maintains that any interference was not directed at the court directly but at perceived custodial authorities.
2. Jailbreak:
o Mr. Bailey was not in custody at the time of the incident, having been released on bail with a GPS tracking device. Thus, no actual "escape from lawful custody"
occurred, and the charge of Jailbreak is improperly applied.
3. Harboring a Fugitive:
o Mr. Bailey was neither a fugitive nor actively evading law enforcement. There is no evidence that the Defendant concealed or assisted Mr. Bailey. Therefore, this charge is not applicable.
4. Hostage Taking:
o The Defendant concedes that hostages were taken and that demands were made, fitting the elements of this charge.
5. Assault on a Peace Officer:
o The Defendant acknowledges that shots were fired; however, the defense will explore whether all elements of "intentional" assault under active lawful duty are strictly met, considering the chaotic circumstances.
6. Attempted First Degree Murder:
o The Defendant challenges the assertion of premeditation and deliberation necessary for a First Degree Attempted Murder charge. While actions were violent, they stemmed from panic and confusion, not from a planned intention to kill.
The Defendant respectfully reserves all rights to present affirmative defenses at trial.
MOTION TO DISMISS
NOW COMES the Defendant, respectfully requesting this Court to dismiss the following charges for the reasons stated:
1. Jailbreak:
o The statute regarding Jailbreak requires that the subject be unlawfully removed from lawful custody. Mr. Bailey had been legally released on bail at the time of the incident. There was no removal from custody, nor was any prison escape facilitated. As such, the charge of Jailbreak fails to satisfy the basic statutory elements.
2. Harboring a Fugitive:
o The charge of Harboring a Fugitive requires proof that the individual being harbored is an active fugitive. Mr. Bailey was not evading lawful custody or prosecution, but was compliant with judicial orders, as evidenced by his GPS monitoring. No act of concealment or assistance was committed by the Defendant.
Accordingly, the Defendant prays that this Court:
• GRANT the Motion to Dismiss the charges of Jailbreak and Harboring a Fugitive;
• PERMIT the Defendant to contest the remaining charges at trial;
• And for such other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.
Respectfully submitted, DATED: 23/04/2025
Ken Skomychi Public Defendant