IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
State of Ridgeway
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-8262
Plaintiff
v.
voxpaa
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO THE HONORABLE COURT
COMES NOW Defendant voxpaa, appearing pro se, and respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Criminal
Information without prejudice. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
I. ARGUMENT
The State has initiated this prosecution through a Criminal Information charging Defendant with
eighty-two felony offenses arising from conduct allegedly occurring on March 20, 2026 and
March 22, 2026.
At the time of the alleged conduct, Section VII of the Ridgeway Constitution provided:
"Public officials or those accused of offenses to be explicitly specified shall enjoy the right to be
charged by grand jury indictment."
The Criminal Information repeatedly alleges that Defendant committed each charged offense
while serving as an on-duty officer of the Palmer Police Department. Thus, by the State's own
allegations, Defendant was a public official within the meaning of Section VII when the alleged
conduct occurred and was therefore entitled to be charged by grand jury indictment.
At the time of the alleged conduct, Rule 3(b) preserved constitutional rights to indictment.
Accordingly, Defendant possessed a constitutional right to be charged through grand jury
indictment before criminal proceedings could lawfully commence.
No grand jury indictment was ever sought or returned. Instead, the State commenced this
prosecution solely through a Criminal Information.
Although Section VII was subsequently amended, Defendant's entitlement to indictment must be
determined under the constitutional framework in effect at the time of the alleged conduct. The
State cannot rely upon a later amendment to retroactively eliminate a constitutional charging
protection that existed when the alleged offenses allegedly occurred.
Indeed, the State's own allegations place Defendant within the class of individuals protected by
Section VII. Having repeatedly alleged that Defendant acted as an on-duty Palmer Police
Department officer, the State cannot simultaneously deny Defendant the constitutional charging
procedure that accompanied that status.
A constitutional amendment may alter the requirements for future prosecutions, but it cannot
retroactively cure a charging defect that existed when this prosecution was required to be
initiated. Because Defendant was constitutionally entitled to be charged by grand jury indictment
at the time of the alleged conduct, and because no such indictment was obtained, the Criminal
Information is constitutionally deficient and should be dismissed.
V. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Criminal Information without
prejudice for failure to proceed through the constitutionally required charging instrument applicable at the time
of the alleged conduct, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/
voxpaa
Defendant, Pro Se
