In 2019, Jordan Rachulap and his brother Emmanuel Reselap went up and down University Drive near UOG, throwing rocks at bystanders and damaging cars with a machete.
Emmanuel was sentenced to 24 years in prison on counts of aggravated assault, criminal mischief, family violence, and terrorizing.
As for his brother, Jordan, he was set to serve 12 years behind bars for charges of criminal mischief and terrorizing with special allegations of a deadly weapon used in the commission of a felony.
However, Jordan made an appeal to the court saying there was insufficient evidence to back these convictions.
One of the arguments his legal counsel made:
“No one saw Jordan cause damage to this vehicle, no one was able to report that he caused damage to this vehicle.”
Jordan’s legal counsel held on to this same argument for another victim’s vehicle.
This victim claimed that Jordan and his brother had “terror in their faces” and appeared to have “hate and concern or an interest to hurt others.”
This victim believes the two brothers “eventually were going to try to kill her.”
Jordan argues that there was no evidence that he “knowingly communicated a threat dangerous to human life.”
Therefore, he believes the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for terrorizing.
This and many other arguments were brought forth by Jordan and his legal counsel.
After arguments were heard by the Court, the Supreme Court issued this opinion authored by Justice Robert Torres, Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido, and Justice Katherine Maraman.
The opinion maintained that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the Criminal Mischief and Terrorizing convictions.
However, only three of the four Special Allegations of Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon charges held up.
The court found that there was not enough evidence to sustain one of the Special Allegations. This is because it was unclear whether or not the victim was inside her car at the time Jordan and his brother started attacking the vehicle.
With that, the prosecution could not show if the victim faced a risk of death or serious bodily injury.
The case was sent back to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
