IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
v.
Phizkod
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CM-2704
Assigned: Judge RobinHD
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The case originated by and through a charging document filed February 24, 2026, charging the
Defendant with seven (7) counts of Second Degree Murder (1-7), two (2) counts of Obstruction of Justice
(8-10), and one (1) count of Attempted Murder (11).
2. On February 24, 2026, the Attorney General electronically filed a Notice of Appearance.
3. On February 24, 2026, an Amended Criminal Information and Probable Cause Statement was
electronically filed.
4. On March 1, 2026, the State of Ridgeway entered into a Plea Agreement with the Defendant. The
Agreement entails that the Defendant will plead guilty to all charges except for Attempted Murder (see
ECF 4).
5. On March 27, 2026, the matter was docketed to the docket of Judge RobinHD.
6. Two (2) days later, the Attorney General signaled a continued pursuit of the matter,
7. On April 11, 2026, the Defendant, by and through their counsel, filed a Proposed Order on a
Motion to Dismiss originally filed on April 6, 2026 (see ECF 5).
8. The Court has set a deadline for April 12, 2026 at 10:00 PM Eastern Standard Time for the
Government’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
9. R.C.C. § 3.08 provides “Whoever attempts to kill another individual.”
10. Causing bodily harm by omission requires the use of force. [ . . . ], the “use” of “physical force” [
. . . ] encompasses the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury. There is no exception to this
principle when an offender causes bodily injury by omission rather than affirmative act. Delligatti v.
United States, 604 U.S. ___ (2025).
11. The “knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury” necessarily involved use of physical
force. The common-law concept of “force” encompasses even its indirect application; the knowing or
intentional application of force is a “use” of force. United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014)
ARGUMENTS
The Defendant’s Argument is Misapplied
12. While it is true that the statute does not include anything further than what has been provided in
para. 9 of this Response, it does not necessarily constitute a vacature based on vagueness.
13. The State does not dispute the core concept that a law must be sufficiently detailed and not vague.
After all, “where the legislature fails to provide such minimal guidelines, a criminal statute may permit "a
standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal
predilections.”” Kolender v. Lawson, 416 U.S. 352 (1983), citing Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 556, 574
(1974).
14. The State would like to counter, however, that the attempted murder statute is not
unconstitutionally vague due to the fact that a person of ordinary intelligence can steer between lawful
and unlawful conduct. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful
conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know
what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).
CONCLUSION
15. For the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully asks the Court to DENY the Motion to Dismiss.
DATED: April 12, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ iiCryptic_LawMD
iiCryptic_LawMD, Esq
First State Attorney
Ridgeway Department of Justice
Criminal Division
SBN: 10233
