COMES NOW the People of San Andreas, by and through Jr. Assistant District Attorney Jane Justice, and respectfully submit this Response in opposition to the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss All Charges against Defendant Billy Porkins. For the reasons stated below, the People respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Defense has moved for dismissal of all charges against Mr. Porkins based on allegations of discovery violations, evidentiary insufficiency, and constitutional claims. However, these arguments are procedurally premature, legally insufficient, and factually inaccurate. The issues raised are best resolved at trial or through appropriate pretrial motions—not through the extraordinary remedy of dismissal.
II. DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE
The People affirm that all discovery materials currently available and required under this Court’s order have been provided in good faith and in a timely manner. The Defense misrepresents the nature of the discovery provided and omits reference to ongoing procedural timelines. The People continue to compile and review additional materials, including investigatory documents and supplementary reports, which will be disclosed in accordance with established legal protocols and deadlines.
There has been no willful or prejudicial violation of the Court’s discovery order. The Prosecution disputes any assertion that Attorney General Whitlock, or this office, deliberately misrepresented compliance to the Court. Assertions of prosecutorial misconduct are entirely unfounded and unsupported by the record.
III. TIMELINE AND EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES
The Defense seeks dismissal by challenging witness credibility and raising questions about the timeline of events. However, such arguments relate to fact-finding and credibility determinations—issues that are strictly the province of the court.
Specifically:
The alleged lack of recovered contraband does not render the witness statements inadmissible or unreliable.
Inconsistencies in dates or amounts are common in narcotics cases and are factual disputes, not grounds for pretrial dismissal.
The presence or absence of specific physical evidence does not negate the sufficiency of probable cause, which is the relevant standard at this stage.
IV. TEXT MESSAGE EVIDENCE AND AUTHENTICATION
The Defense challenges the admissibility of text messages based on a lack of authentication. These challenges are premature. The People will authenticate all digital evidence in accordance with applicable evidentiary rules and reserve the right to supplement disclosures, including through subpoenaed telephone records or expert testimony. Questions of admissibility are for the Court to decide at trial or via a motion in limine—not via dismissal.
V. SEARCH RESULTS AND CHARGES
The consensual search of Defendant’s property and vehicle produced items relevant to multiple charges, including:
Agricultural equipment suggestive of cultivation;
Large quantities of cash consistent with drug trafficking;
A heavy revolver lacking a serial number;
Apparent possession of unauthorized government-marked supplies.
The Defense’s attempts to trivialize these findings ignore the context in which they were discovered. These items are probative and material, and the People intend to establish their significance at trial.
VI. FIREARM POSSESSION
Regarding the revolver, the Defense claims the Prosecution has not established possession. However, actual possession is not required; constructive possession, supported by circumstantial evidence, is sufficient under state law. Whether Defendant had custody or control of the firearm is a factual question to be resolved at trial—not a matter for dismissal.
VII. CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
The Defense misinterprets the statute governing marijuana cultivation. The statutory term “tending to” encompasses a broad range of conduct beyond physical interaction with plants. The presence of cultivation-related materials on Defendant’s property, along with other circumstantial evidence, supports this charge proceeding to trial.
VIII. SIXTH AMENDMENT AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS
The Defense's claim that the Defendant's constitutional rights have been violated lacks merit. The Defendant has not been deprived of his right to a fair and expeditious trial. All procedural steps, including discovery and motion hearings, have been conducted within appropriate timeframes and consistent with due process.
Any disputes regarding outstanding documents or perceived gaps in discovery should be addressed through a motion to compel or pretrial evidentiary review, not through dismissal of the entire case.
IX. CONCLUSION
The Defense’s Motion to Dismiss is based on speculative and unsubstantiated assertions. The arguments presented go to the weight of the evidence, not its legal sufficiency. The Prosecution has met its burden at this stage of the proceedings and has acted in good faith throughout discovery.
WHEREFORE, the People of San Andreas respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
DENY the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss;
Allow all charges against Defendant Billy Porkins to proceed to trial on their merits.
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of May, 2025.
Jane Justice
Jr. Assistant District Attorney
State of San Andreas
