Case No. 221906445 in the Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County, Utah

The following is a summary of this ongoing case and its development, followed by a table listing significant documents filed with the court, which are available to the public through the Utah Courts Xchange system. Because searching and downloading many documents through Xchange is expensive, these documents are made available here to provide details about these cases to Bluffdale residents without the inconvenience and cost of XChange. Routine notices, certificates of service, and other inconsequential documents were left out of this analysis, but see the complete docket if you’re curious about what was omitted.

NOTE THAT WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS, AND IN THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY AND TABLE OF DOCUMENTS DERIVED FROM THEM, ARE FOUND MANY ALLEGATIONS. REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE MERELY ACCUSATIONS, REFLECTING THE POINTS OF VIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, JASON HALL, JEFF GASTON, WITNESSES THAT WERE INTERVIEWED, ETC. THE ALLEGATIONS MAY NOT BE TRUE, AND THE DOCUMENTS MAY HAVE LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE OR SUPPORT FOR THEM. MANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT MADE UNDER OATH OR SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY BY THE OPPOSING PARTY.

This content was developed with the help of artificial intelligence. All AI-generated content was checked for accuracy, with corrections made. However, if you find any errors, please report them to admin@bluffdalefloodlight.com.

Nature of the Case: This is a criminal prosecution involving alleged threats, assault, stalking, and harassment against an elected official, stemming from political tensions in Bluffdale. The defendant was accused of directly committing acts and aiding others (e.g., George M. Schliesser) in a course of conduct that included anonymous emails, threatening packages, and physical confrontation. The harassment reportedly caused Jeff Gaston to withdraw his mayoral candidacy.

Alleged Crimes: The charges were filed on June 30, 2022, via an Information supported by a declaration of probable cause from an agent of the Utah Attorney General’s Office. The allegations describe a pattern of intimidation from March 2021 to November 2021, including emails from “cpacbluffdale@gmail.com” and “bluffdalecitizensforcivility@yahoo.com” (May 5, 2021, May 8, 2021, June 14, 2021, and July 20, 2021), letters that threatened death, surreptitious deliveries of mocking or threatening items (e.g., anger management book, jester’s hat, gag gifts), and a physical altercation. Jason Hall admitted to sending emails and directing deliveries, which were executed by George Schliesser, but denied sending death threats. The acts allegedly were intended to influence Jeff Gaston’s political actions and cause him fear and distress. To see photos of these items, scroll down to documents 249 through 264 in the table, below.

• Count One: Threatening Elected Officials – Assault (U.C.A. §§ 76-8-313, 76-8-315, 76-5-102; Third-Degree Felony). On or about August 14, 2021, Hall allegedly assaulted Gaston by throwing political signs at him during a booth event, piercing his skin, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with Gaston’s official duties or retaliate against him.
• Count Two: Stalking (U.C.A. §§ 76-5-106.5(2)(a)(b), (6)(a), 76-2-202; Class A Misdemeanor). Between March 5, 2021, and November 20, 2021, Hall allegedly engaged in a course of conduct directed at Gaston (e.g., deliveries to his home/work and emails), knowing or should have known it would cause reasonable fear for safety, emotional distress, or harm to a third party.
• Count Three: Threats to Influence Official or Public Action (U.C.A. § 76-8-104; Class A Misdemeanor). Between March 5, 2021, and November 20, 2021, Hall allegedly threatened harm to Gaston (e.g., notes saying “kill yourself,” “put you down like the Dog you are,” “you will end up dead”) to influence his actions, decisions, or exercise of discretion as a public servant.

NOTE: This case was resolved through a plea agreement in which the initial charges were dropped and replaced with a single, lesser charge of criminal mischief (intentionally and unlawfully tampering with the property of another and as a result recklessly endangering human health or safety) replacing Count One (Assault), to which the defendant, Jason Hall, entered a plea of no contest, with the plea held in abeyance for a period of 12 months. Because of the plea agreement, this case never went to trial, so the strengths and weaknesses of the state’s case were never tested in court, and Hall did not cross-examine the State’s witnesses, including Gaston, or present evidence in his defense before a jury. Nevertheless, many of Hall’s defenses are revealed in the following documents filed in this case in the weeks leading up the scheduled trial, such as motions to suppress evidence, motions to dismiss certain charges, and other motions to limit the scope of the State’s case.

Docket No.	Document Title	Date Filed	Purpose & Summary	Key Developments
001	INFORMATION (SUMMONS)	2022-06-30	This document initiated the case, formally charging Jason Christopher Hall with three crimes related to threats and stalking of a public official, Jeff Gaston.	The filing of this document marked the official beginning of criminal proceedings against the defendant.
049	STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER	2022-10-18	This motion was a joint request by the prosecution and defense to establish rules for handling sensitive and confidential documents from the City of Bluffdale. It was submitted after a defense subpoena prompted the city to request a protective order.
091	MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY	2022-11-22	The State filed this motion to block a defense subpoena that would compel the victim, Jeff Gaston, to testify at the preliminary hearing. The State argued that victim testimony was not necessary to establish probable cause and cited case law to support its position.
092	SUBPOENA	2022-11-22	This subpoena, issued by the defense, ordered the victim, Jeffrey Dylan Gaston, to appear and testify at the preliminary hearing. This document directly triggered the State’s Motion to Quash the subpoena (not listed).
093	SUBPOENA	2022-11-22	This subpoena, also from the defense, required the victim, Jeffrey Dylan Gaston, to produce documents related to a civil stalking injunction he had filed against Jason and Natalie Hall.
103	RULING	2022-12-01	This ruling addressed the State’s Motion to Quash the subpoena for the victim to testify at the preliminary hearing. The court sided with the State and granted the motion, finding that the subpoena was “per se unreasonable” at this stage of the case.
137	MINUTES	2023-02-14	These minutes summarized the preliminary hearing and arraignment. The court found that the State had met its burden and bound the case over for trial. The defendant, Jason Christopher Hall, was arraigned and entered not guilty pleas on all charges.	The court determined there was enough evidence to proceed to trial, marking a significant step forward in the case.
138	EXHIBIT LIST	2023-02-14	This list detailed the exhibits presented by both the State and the Defense at the preliminary hearing. The State offered a number of items, including emails, subscriber details, and an affidavit from the victim, Jeff Gaston. This document provided insight into the evidence the State intended to use to establish probable cause without calling the victim to testify.
144	MOTION FOR GOOD CAUSE DISCLOSURES	2023-03-07	The State filed this motion seeking various disclosures from the defense, such as evidence that might negate the prosecution’s case and a list of all witnesses and exhibits the defense might use at trial.
146	DEFENDANT’S REPONSE TO MOTION FOR GOOD CAUSE DISCLOSURES	2023-03-14	The defense opposed the State’s motion for discovery. It argued that the motion lacked a legal basis and was premature, as the defense intended to file its own motions that could change the scope of the case. This document highlights the defense’s strategy to postpone discovery until its own motions had been decided, reflecting the adversarial nature of the case.
150	REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF GOOD CAUSE DISCLOSURE ORDER	2023-03-21	The State replied to the defense’s opposition, arguing that its request was necessary to prevent unnecessary delays and continuances at trial. The State claimed it had been forthcoming with its own disclosures and accused the defense of not doing the same. This document illustrates the ongoing friction between the parties over the timing and scope of evidence disclosure.
233	MOTION TO SUPPRESS DATA RETRIEVED FROM CELL PHONE	2023-08-14	The defense filed this motion to block the use of evidence from the defendant’s cell phone. It alleged a violation of the attorney-client privilege because law enforcement viewed a text message from the defendant’s attorney, even after being advised to use a “taint team”.	This motion introduced a significant constitutional challenge regarding the collection of evidence, potentially leading to the exclusion of all data from the defendant’s phone.
234	MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS	2023-08-14	The defense filed this motion to suppress statements made by the defendant to law enforcement on March 2, 2022. The defense argued that law enforcement improperly continued questioning after the defendant gave an ambiguous response, “potentially,” to a question about waiving his Miranda rights, violating his right to counsel. (See Transcript of Hall’s Interview with investigators of the Attorney General’s Office on March 2, 2022 at the time agents executed a search warrant on Hall’s place of employment (redacted version obtained through a GRAMA request).)	This motion posed another constitutional challenge, arguing that the defendant’s statements were not made voluntarily and should be excluded from evidence at trial.
236	MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS TWO AND THREE OF THE INFORMATION	2023-08-14	This motion requested the dismissal of the stalking and threats charges. The defense argued that the underlying Utah statutes were unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, citing a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Counterman v. Colorado, which required a subjective mental state for “true threat” cases.
247	STATE’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 2 AND 3 OF THE INFORMATION	2023-08-30	The State responded to the defense’s motion to dismiss. It argued that the Utah statutes were constitutional as applied because the State intended to prove the defendant acted with “knowledge and intent,” a standard that met or exceeded the one required by the Supreme Court.
248	1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is a sworn statement from the victim, Jeff Gaston. It detailed the emotional distress he experienced from the threats and his belief that he was being targeted by multiple groups, which was later found to be a misrepresentation orchestrated by the defendant. This is Exhibit A of Document 247. This declaration provided the court with evidence of the subjective impact of the defendant’s alleged actions, a key element for meeting the higher legal standard under the Counterman decision.
249	EXHIBIT 1 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 1 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains the March 5, 2021 email Jason Hall admitted to sending to Gaston.	Exhibits 1-9, beginning here and continuing through the next 8 links, are copies of the packages, emails, and threat letters Gaston received. Hall admitted to sending the packages and emails but denied sending the threatening letters.
250	EXHIBIT 2 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 2 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains the March 8, 2021 email Jason Hall admitted to sending to the Bluffdale Mayor and City Council with instructions on how they should handle Gaston during City Council meetings. The email purported to be from “Bluffdale Citizens for Civility.”
251	EXHIBIT 3 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 3 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains photos of the package Hall sent to Gaston at Gaston’s home through George Schliesser, which Gaston received on March 9, 2021. It included a copy of a book titled “Anger Management Workbook for Kids” and a note that said, “I hope this helps with your issues, buddy.” Gaston alleged that it also contained a threatening letter stating, “Hey Imbecile!!!!! Move out of Bluffdale, apologize or kill yourself! If you can’t do that then maybe you will just end up being killed. It’s time for you to start watching your back. This is your final warning. We are moving to the next phase. Do what we ask, or we will do what must be done.” (Hall admitted to sending the package but denied including the threatening letter.)
252	EXHIBIT 4 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 4 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains photos of “gag” gifts Hall admitted to sending through Schliesser to the Bluffdale mayor and City Council members at City Hall, including Gaston, on March 9, 2021, in the form of City Council Meeting Survival Kits. The kits were intended to mock Gaston, portraying him as childish. They included instructions for using the diapers, pacifiers, fruit snacks, and other items included to survive City Council meetings.
253	EXHIBIT 5 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 5 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains a photo of a letter mailed to Gaston at City Hall on March 11, 2021 which concludes with the sentence, “It’s time we put you down like the Dog you are, not a statesman.” Hall denied sending the letter.
259	EXHIBIT 6 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 6 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains a two-page document with emails Hall admitted to sending through the email address “cpacbluffdale@gmail.com” on March 5, 2021, June 14, 2021, and July 20, 2021.
262	EXHIBIT 7 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 7 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains a photo of Gaston’s arm with scratches allegedly made by Jason Hall at Old West Days on August 14, 2021.
263	EXHIBIT 8 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 8 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains a photo of a package Jason Hall admitted to sending to Gaston’s home through George Schliesser on November 2, 2021. The package contained a jester’s hat and a note that said, “You’ve earned this.” The return address was the address of a Salt Lake City axe-throwing business.
264	EXHIBIT 9 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 9 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains a photo of a threatening letter postmarked November 20, 2021 and received by Gaston at his home. The letter ended with, “If you don’t you will end up dead.” Hall denied sending this.
265	EXHIBIT 10 TO 1102 DECLARATION OF JEFF GASTON	2023-08-30	This is Exhibit 10 to Document 248, Jeff Gaston’s sworn statement. It contains a photo of Gaston’s written statement to the police on November 8, 2021.
274	DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS	2023-09-07	The defense replied to the State’s opposition to the motion to dismiss. It argued that the State still misunderstood the legal standard from Counterman and had failed to present any factual evidence of the defendant’s subjective mental state at the preliminary hearing.
276	MINUTES	2023-09-08	These minutes summarized a hearing on the motion to dismiss. The court took the motion under advisement and scheduled a new hearing for the motion to suppress, indicating that a final decision on the motion to dismiss had not yet been made.
278	MOTION TO COMPEL	2023-09-18	The defense filed a motion asking the court to order the State to allow its expert, Gerald M. LaPorte, to examine physical letters alleged to be threatening communications. The defense argued that examining the paper and ink was “critical” to its defense.	This motion initiated a significant discovery dispute over the physical evidence, leading to a legal battle over the defense’s right to perform its own forensic testing.
281	OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL	2023-09-19	The State filed a procedural objection to the defense’s Motion to Compel. The State argued that the defense had filed a proposed order simultaneously with the motion, which was premature and not authorized by court rules. This document marked the beginning of a procedural dispute over how the motion to compel was filed, delaying the substantive arguments.
285	STATE’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL	2023-09-25	The State substantively opposed the motion to compel expert testing. It argued that the testing would permanently alter the original evidence, and the defense had not met its burden to prove the testing was necessary or that its expert disclosures met court rules.
286	DECLARATION OF THOMAS RUSSELL REGARDING PHOTOGRAPHING THE EXHIBITS	2023-09-25	This sworn declaration from Special Agent Thomas Russell explained the procedures used when the defense was previously allowed to photograph the evidence. He stated that physical handling was restricted to prevent contamination of the evidence.
287	DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES	2023-09-25	This document served as the defendant’s formal response to the State’s request for discovery. It listed a variety of documents and items the defense might use at trial but reserved the right to supplement as its investigation continued.
289	RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL	2023-09-26	The defense responded to the State’s procedural objection (Document 281), arguing that court rules required it to file a proposed order with its motion to compel, and therefore the State’s objection was invalid. It resolved the procedural dispute, allowing the court to proceed with the substantive arguments of the motion to compel.
291	MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ORDER TO COMPEL	2023-09-27	The State filed this motion to strike the defense’s response (Document 289) and the proposed order. The State argued the defense was attempting to re-characterize its motion as something it was not to avoid procedural non-compliance.
317	ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY MOTION TO DESIGNATE TRANSCRIPT AS PROTECTED DOCUMENT	2023-10-16	This order granted an emergency motion to designate a transcript of Hall’s interview with law enforcement as a protected document. This order sought to shield the transcript from public view. This action was a strategic move by the defense to protect potentially sensitive information while litigating the motion to suppress.
319	ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT TWO AND THREE	2023-10-24	This is the court’s official ruling on the constitutional challenge to Counts 2 and 3. The court denied the motion to dismiss but ruled that the State could not use a “should have known” standard for threatening speech. The State must now prove Hall acted with “knowledge” of the threats, a higher standard.	This was a pivotal ruling, upholding the charges but imposing a stricter legal burden of proof on the State.
321	MINUTES OF HEARING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS	2023-10-27	These minutes summarized the hearing on the motions to suppress. The State stipulated to suppress the cell phone data, rendering that portion of the motion moot. Testimony was heard from Agents Russell and Downey regarding the circumstances of the defendant’s interrogation.	The State’s stipulation to suppress the cell phone data was a major development, while the hearing itself laid the groundwork for the court’s subsequent ruling on the admissibility of Mr. Hall’s statements.
327	STATE’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT	2023-11-17	The State argued against the motion to suppress the defendant’s statements. It asserted that Mr. Hall had voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights and that the agents were not acting as an “alter ego” of the prosecutor. This document provided the State’s defense of its interrogation techniques and its argument that no constitutional violations had occurred.
329	REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT	2023-12-01	The defense replied to the State’s opposition. The defense claimed the State’s narrative was contradicted by the agents’ own reports and testimony, and it reiterated that the agent’s failure to clarify what Hall meant when he told investigators that he would “potentially” talk to them about the case (during execution of a search warrant on Hall’s business) constituted a violation of the defendant’s rights.
330	TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING.pdf	2023-12-01	This is an exhibit to the defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Suppress Statement (Document 329). It is a verbatim transcript of the October 27, 2023, hearing on the motion to suppress. It contains the sworn testimony of Agents Thomas Russell and Tyson Downey, including conflicting statements about whether Agent Russell had informed Agent Downey about the rumor of Mr. Hall having a lawyer.
351	ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS	2024-01-25	The court granted the motion to suppress Mr. Hall’s statements. The court found that because the agent failed to clarify Mr. Hall’s equivocal response of “potentially,” his subsequent waiver of rights was not voluntary. The court, however, rejected the defense’s claim of an ethical violation by the prosecutor.	This was a major victory for the defense, as it excluded Mr. Hall’s statements to police, which were likely a key part of the prosecution’s case.
469	MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY	2024-05-24	The State filed a motion to prevent a defense expert, Gerald M. LaPorte, from testifying. The State argued that the expert’s testimony was based on inadmissible hearsay, would impermissibly comment on the defendant’s credibility, and was irrelevant because the printer samples were collected years after the alleged crimes.
470	EXHIBIT A OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY	2024-05-29	This is the expert report from Gerald M. LaPorte. The report concluded that some of the threatening letters could not have been printed on any of the five printers at Hall’s home or office because they used different technology (inkjet vs. toner). The report also found that the toner used in other letters was chemically indistinguishable from toner used in two of the printers at Mr. Hall’s office. The printers at Hall’s home and office were tested shortly before this report, in 2024.
501	MR. HALL’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE REGARDING NEGLIGENCE OR RECKLESSNESS	2024-06-03	Following the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss (Document 319), the defense filed this motion to prevent the State from introducing any arguments or evidence that Mr. Hall acted with negligence or recklessness. The defense argued that the court had already ruled the State must prove a higher standard of “knowledge”. This document was a tactical move by the defense to enforce the court’s previous ruling and ensure the jury was presented with the proper legal standard.
502	MR. HALL’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE STATE’S EXHIBITS BASED ON HEARSAY	2024-06-03	The defense filed this motion to exclude a large number of the State’s proposed exhibits, including recorded interviews and affidavits, on the basis that they were inadmissible hearsay. This motion represented a broad challenge to the admissibility of much of the State’s evidence, arguing that out-of-court statements could not be used for the truth of the matter asserted.
504	MR. HALL’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE	2024-06-03	This motion sought a court order that the spousal privilege could not be used to prevent the victim’s domestic partner, Jazmine Beeny, from testifying about communications she had with the victim prior to their marriage. This document was a procedural move to gain access to potentially relevant testimony from a key witness, arguing that the privilege did not apply at the time of the alleged crimes.
514	MR. HALL’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY REFERRING TO EMAILS AND GAG GIFTS AS THREATS	2024-06-04	The defense filed this motion to prevent the State and its witnesses from referring to certain emails and “gag gifts” as “threats” during trial. The defense argued that these communications were constitutionally protected political speech, not “true threats,” and that labeling them as such would be an inadmissible legal conclusion.
525	MR. HALL’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF CONNIE PAVLAKIS	2024-06-06	The defense filed this motion to exclude the testimony of Connie Pavlakis, who was on the State’s witness list to testify about a conversation she had with the victim, Jeffrey Gaston. The defense argued that this testimony was inadmissible hearsay.
529	MR. HALL’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO REDACT MENTION OF DONALD TRUMP	2024-06-06	The defense filed a motion to redact a specific reference to “Donald Trump” from a State exhibit. The defense argued that the reference was irrelevant and highly prejudicial in an election year, creating a risk of confusing the jury and leading to an unfair trial.
531	MR. HALL’S OPPOSITION TO THE STATE’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY	2024-06-07	This document is the defense’s response to the State’s motion to exclude its expert’s testimony. The defense defended its expert, stating that his report, which concluded that several documents could not have been printed by the defendant’s known printers, was based on sound scientific methods and was relevant to the case.
802	RULING	2024-11-13	This ruling addressed an issue with a previously signed order related to the motion to dismiss Count 2. The court struck a prior order that mistakenly indicated Count 2 was dismissed. The ruling confirmed that the motion to dismiss was denied, but that the court would grant the defense’s alternative motion to instruct the jury on protected speech.
826	AMENDED INFORMATION	2025-02-25	The State filed this amended information, which replaces the original charges with a single count of Criminal Mischief, a Class B misdemeanor.	This document was a critical step toward resolving the case through a plea agreement on a single, lesser charge.
828	STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF NO-CONTEST PLEA AND CERTIFICATES OF COUNSEL	2025-02-24	In this document, the defendant entered a no contest plea to the amended charge of Criminal Mischief under U.C.A. 76-6-106(2)(a)(1)(B), a class B misdemeanor. With this plea, Hall acknowledged that he “took the property of another (campaign yard signs) and threw it in an area where other people were standing, recklessly endangering the health or safety of the people in that area” and that the State had enough evidence to convict, while Hall maintained his innocence. As part of the plea agreement, the State likely agreed to propose that the plea be held in abeyance, which plea Hall and the court accepted (see 833).	A court may not accept a no-contest plea without finding that the defendant understands certain things. This documents Hall’s understanding.
829	AMENDED INFORMATION	2025-02-24	This document is an Amended Information from the State, replacing the original charges with one count of Criminal Mischief, a Class B misdemeanor.	This document officially changed the charges against the defendant as part of the plea agreement.
831	AMENDED INFORMATION	2025-02-25	This document is an Amended Information, similar to 829, replacing the original charges with a single count of Criminal Mischief.
833	MINUTES: PLEA IN ABEYANCE	2025-03-14	This document records the court proceedings for the plea in abeyance. Hall’s no contest plea was held in abeyance for a period of 12 months. As a result, during this period, a judgment of conviction will not be entered, and the defendant must comply with specific conditions: 1. Be placed on court probation (presumably for 12 months). Probation may not be terminated early without notice to the prosecutor. 2. Have no contact with the victim in the case, except for legal proceedings (such as the related civil case filed by the victim, Gaston). 3. Pay a plea in abeyance fee of $690. 4. Commit no further violations of the law.	This is the final resolution of the case, provided that Hall complies with the conditions to keep the plea in abeyance.