Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
3,087 characters extracted
—
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-0389
Presiding Judge: Hon. EffortlessBrit
v.
MIGRATIONAL
Defendant
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
The State respectfully opposes Defendant’s Motion to Strike Count II. The Motion incorrectly
assumes that the investigating officer’s initial legal classification controls what offense the State may
charge. Probable cause depends upon the sworn facts—not the statutory label selected by the
investigator.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
1. THE SWORN FACTS SUPPORT BATTERY
The affidavit alleges that Defendant intentionally and without lawful justification deployed a
government-issued taser against another person, resulting in actual physical contact and the application
of electrical force. Assault per Ridgeway Criminal Code concerns “Whoever intentionally or knowingly
threatens another with imminent bodily injury or apprehension.” Aggravated Battery Class II concerns
completed intentional, knowingly, or recklessly bodily injury to a public official, police officer, civil
service employee, witness, or informant through physical contact. The Defendant did not merely
threaten to deploy the taser; the alleged deployment actually affected the victim. The conduct therefore
supports battery regardless of the investigator’s suggestion of the word and charge of “assault.”
2. DEFENDANT HAS RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE BATTERY CHARGE
Cole v. Arkansas and Stirone v. The United States involved defendants convicted under offenses or
theories that were not properly charged or tried. The Criminal Information expressly charges Defendant
with Aggravated Battery Class II, and Defendant has received notice of that charge. The State is relying
upon the same incident, victim, evidence, and alleged taser deployment described in the affidavit. It has
merely applied the correct legal classification to those facts. No new investigation is required simply to
replace an incorrect statutory label.
3. THE STATE DID NOT CONCEDE THAT PROBABLE CAUSE WAS ABSENT
The State’s statement that battery was more appropriate than assault was not a concession that the
affidavit was invalid. It was an acknowledgment that actual physical contact toward a government
employee is more accurately charged as Aggravated Battery Class II. When the Court questioned
whether the alleged taser deployment was more properly classified as battery, the State agreed and
amended the charge. This was not a concession that probable cause was absent. The amendment merely
corrected the legal classification of the same conduct already described in the affidavit. No new incident,
victim, or evidence was introduced, and Defendant received notice of the amended charge.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests that this Court DENY Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Count II and permit the prosecution to proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
ADAMSTRATTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIDGEWAY
By:
eothyu, Esquire
State Attorney
R. Bar No. 19201
1100 Lakeside Drive
Palmer, Ridgeway 80013
Counsel for the State of Ridgeway
