Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 2 Filed 05/02/2026 Page 1 of 7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Plaintiff(s)
v.
VOXPAA
Defendant(s)
Case No. RSC-CM-8262
STATE'S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY
TO THE HONORABLE COURT
COMES NOW the State of Ridgeway, by and through its undersigned counsel, and
respectfully submits this Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Specificity.
In support thereof, the State states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
The Defendant asks this Court to dismiss eighty-two felony counts on the grounds that he
cannot adequately prepare a defense. This argument is remarkable given that the Defendant
personally recorded three of the four criminal transactions at issue, voluntarily surrendered those
recordings to law enforcement, and confessed during a Mirandized interrogation to dealing on four
separate occasions, naming each recipient himself. The Defendant does not lack notice of the
charges against him. He lacks a legal argument against them. This Motion is a procedural attack
dressed up as a constitutional one, and it fails under any standard this Court may choose to apply,
whether Ridgeway's own governing rule or the very federal framework the Defendant himself
invokes.
1
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 2 Filed 05/02/2026 Page 2 of 7
II. THE RIDGEWAY STANDARD GOVERNS AND IS SATISFIED
A. Rule 4(a) Is the Applicable Standard
The sufficiency of a criminal information in this jurisdiction is governed by Rule 4(a) of the
Ridgeway Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
"An indictment and a criminal information shall contain a caption as provided by
law, together with a plain, concise description of the act which constitutes the crime or an appropriate
legal term descriptive thereof."
Plain and concise. That is the standard this Court is bound to apply. The Defendant's
Motion does not cite Rule 4(a), analyze it, distinguish it, or acknowledge its existence anywhere in
twelve pages of briefing. A motion that ignores the governing rule entirely and substitutes a body of
federal common law in its place has not engaged seriously with the law of this jurisdiction.
B. The Information Satisfies Rule 4(a)
The Criminal Information is not vague. It is exceptionally detailed. Each count range
identifies the precise date of the offense, the precise location of the offense, the identity of the
recipient, and a specific itemized list of every individual piece of government-issued equipment or
firearm transferred. The Information describes four discrete, separable criminal transactions. The
charging structure is transparent: one count per item unlawfully distributed. Each item transferred
constitutes a separate completed violation of §§ 5.06 or 5.09. Each count corresponds to exactly one
2
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 2 Filed 05/02/2026 Page 3 of 7
item. This is a rational, plain, and concise description of the offenses charged, and it satisfies Rule
4(a) completely.
III. THE INFORMATION ALSO SATISFIES THE FEDERAL STANDARD THE
DEFENDANT INVOKES
The State does not concede that the federal authorities cited by the Defendant control the
outcome here. However, the State recognizes that federal case law may carry persuasive weight
before this Court, and therefore addresses it directly, because even on the Defendant's own terms,
his Motion fails.
A. The Federal Standard Requires Only Fair Notice, Which the Information Provides
The core principle animating every federal case the Defendant cites is that a charging
instrument must give the defendant fair notice of the charges against him with reasonable certainty.
Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 765 (1962). The United States Supreme Court has consistently
held that a charging document is sufficient when it enables the defendant to prepare a defense and
to plead the judgment as a bar to future prosecution. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974).
The Information in this case does precisely that. It identifies four discrete transactions
separated by date, time, location, and recipient. It enumerates every item transferred in each
transaction. It identifies the specific statutory provisions violated. Under any fair reading of the
federal authorities the Defendant relies upon, this Information provides more than adequate notice.
B. The Defendant's Own Motion Defeats His Claimed Prejudice
The most telling indicator that the Defendant has received adequate notice is the Motion
before this Court. In arguing that he cannot identify the conduct underlying each count, the
3
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 2 Filed 05/02/2026 Page 4 of 7
Defendant accurately summarizes all four transactions, correctly identifies the statutory provisions at
issue, and engages substantively with the charging structure throughout. A defendant who can
author a twelve-page motion accurately describing the charges against him has, by definition,
received the reasonable certainty the federal cases require. The Defendant cannot simultaneously
claim in a court filing that he understands the charges and argue to this Court that he does not.
C. The Federal Cases the Defendant Cites Actually Support the State
The Defendant relies heavily on United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), for the
proposition that charges must "descend to particulars." What the Defendant omits is that
Cruikshank involved an indictment so vague it failed to identify the race of the victims in a civil
rights prosecution, a deficiency of an entirely different magnitude than anything alleged here.
Similarly, Russell v. United States involved charges of refusing to answer questions before a
congressional subcommittee without identifying which subject the subcommittee was investigating, a
structural ambiguity that made it literally impossible to know what conduct was at issue. None of the
deficiencies identified in those cases bear any resemblance to the Information before this Court,
which leaves nothing to the imagination as to the what, when, where, and to whom of each alleged
transaction.
D. The Per-Item Charging Structure Is Legally Sound
The Defendant argues that the Information impermissibly aggregates conduct without
clarifying whether each count represents a discrete act, an individual item transfer, or a course of
conduct. The Information answers this question plainly, each count represents one individual item
transferred. This is not ambiguity; this is the State exercising its well-recognized discretion to charge
multiple completed offenses arising from a single criminal encounter. Each transfer of a distinct item
of government-issued equipment is a separate, completed violation of § 5.09 the moment it occurs.
4
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 2 Filed 05/02/2026 Page 5 of 7
Charging each violation separately is not only permissible, it is the precise and transparent approach
the federal particularity doctrine is designed to encourage.
IV. THE DEFENDANT'S CLAIMED PREJUDICE IS NOT GENUINE
The Defendant claims he cannot identify which evidence supports which count, challenge
the elements of individual charges, or protect himself against double jeopardy. Each of these claims
dissolves upon contact with the facts.
As to identifying the evidence, the Defendant personally operated the recording device that
captured three of the four transactions at issue and voluntarily surrendered those recordings to the
Ridgeway State Police during the investigation. He then sat for a Mirandized interrogation in which
he acknowledged dealing on four separate occasions, identified Cyberphiliac and jjpet2345 by name,
and stated in his own words "I DEALT HIM A SNIPER" and "WE DO CRIME TOGETHER." A
defendant who filmed his own criminal conduct, surrendered the footage, and confessed cannot
credibly claim he is unable to identify which evidence supports which charge.
As to double jeopardy, the Information's precision is the very thing that protects the
Defendant. Because each count is anchored to a specific transaction, a specific recipient, and a
specific individual item, the record is sufficiently detailed to bar any future prosecution for the same
conduct. The Defendant's double jeopardy concern does not reflect a genuine vulnerability in the
Information, it reflects an attempt to manufacture one.
V. AMENDMENT IS AVAILABLE AS AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
Even if this Court were to identify some technical imperfection in the Information, which
the State submits it should not, dismissal remains an inappropriate remedy. Rule 4(d) of the
Ridgeway Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that a judge may allow amendment of the
5
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 2 Filed 05/02/2026 Page 6 of 7
form of a criminal information upon motion of either party, provided such amendment would not
prejudice the defendant or the State. The Rules contemplate exactly this scenario. To dismiss
eighty-two felony counts over a pleading preference expressed by the very defendant who filmed his
own crimes would be to elevate form so far above substance that justice becomes unrecognizable.
This Court should not permit that result.
VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Criminal Information in this matter satisfies Rule 4(a) of the Ridgeway Rules of
Criminal Procedure. It satisfies the federal notice standard the Defendant himself invokes. And it is
contradicted at every turn by the Defendant's own conduct, admissions, and the motion he filed in
this very Court. The State respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
1. DENY Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety;
2. In the alternative, permit the State to amend the Information pursuant to Rule 4(d)
should the Court identify any technical deficiency; and
3. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
* * * * *
Dated: May 7, 2026
Palmer, Ridgeway
Respectfully Submitted,
luhvcouture
State Attorney
Office of Government & Corruption
Ridgeway Department of Justice
6
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 2 Filed 05/02/2026 Page 7 of 7
7
