ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
State of Ridgeway
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-354
PRESIDING JUDGE. EAGLEEYE785
Plaintiff
v.
Steinhoxha
Defendant
COURT RULING
BACKGROUND
The State of Ridgeway filed a criminal information against Steinhoxha on May 09,2022, wherein the
defendant was charged with Aiding and Abetting, Brandishing and Assault. The defendant failed to appear
before the court following the issuance of a criminal summons. The defendant was tried in-absentia with a
not-guilty plea entered by the court. On June 06, 2022, the court held a trial.
JUDGEMENT
On or around the date of 1st May, 2022, Steinhoxha is shown in Exhibit A as running around whilst
brandishing an unidentified Salvo handgun. Simultaneous to this act, anotther civilian, robloxgamer400243 is
shown counting down from 0. Following the conclusion of this count, he is shown firing three successive
rounds at the victim of the crime, marioluigi7896, leading to his death.
ON THE CHARGE OF 6 S.C.C § 4 - AIDING AND ABETTING , the Court finds the defendant
NOT GUILTY. The State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.
The state - with testimony - could not substantiate the claim that the defendant was aiding their alleged
accomplice in carrying an act of murder against the victim. The criminal information alleges that the defendant
had ‘aided the commission of this offene through his participation in the use of force and threatening with a
deadly weapon.’ The Judge presiding over the matter in which the alleged co-conspirator was charged had
acquitted the defendant on all charges as they had determined an absence of mens rea - albeit actus reus did
exist. Trial courts have consistently upheld that for one to satisfy the requisite for aiding and abetting, an alleged
principal actor to whom the aiding has stemmed from must be guilty for traditional aiding and abetting theory to
apply. The defendant must have performed acts or given encouragement that assisted the commission of a
crime. Parsons v. State held that ‘Inherent in a prosecution for aiding and abetting is proof that the individual
that was aided and abetted actually committed the crime.’ Wherein the alleged original actor was found
innocent, they are not to be seen to have committed the crime. Making a presumption of guilt would contravene
their constitutional rights of due process. Guzman v. State further held that,’A/caseiding and abetting requires
proof of a common criminal intent.’ The Court is not satisfied that such a criminal intent exists.
Furthermore, it is the opinion of the court that the defendant did not carry out an act to further the crime.
When examining the laws of aiding and abetting, there is a principal actor and a secondary actor. A secondary
actor need not shadow the moves of the principal actor, but they must do something in the furtherance of that
crime. Simply brandishing a firearm at the scene is not inherently a crime; it can fall within the parameters of
self-defense or an individual exercising limited constraint in their statutory right to be a good samaritan. The
lack of active participation of the defendant is why the court is not convinced that the defendant was aiding and
abetting the crime(s) of their alleged co-conspirator.
ON THE CHARGE OF 5 S.C.C § 4 - BRANDISHING, the Court finds the defendant NOT GUILTY.
The State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act. The plain text of this
charge reads [in part], “The act...of while in the presence of any other person, drawing…any firearm…in a rude,
angry, or thrreatening manner..” The State alleges that the defendant was brandishing their firearm in an attempt
to intimidate the TA bus operator with the purpose of forcing his submission. The Court is not convinced that
such an intimidation took place; mens rea cannot be proven. The defendant did not attest to his intention of
brandishing his firearm, nor can the court infer such intention from the testimony of the victim as they showed a
lack of recollection on numerous occasions. It is the purview of the Court that there is ambiguity regarding the
intent, as it is indeed an affirmative defence that one may brandish their firearm in defense of themselves or
another civilian.
ON THE CHARGE OF 3 S.C.C § 2 - ASSAULT, the Court finds the defendant NOT GUILTY. The
State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant unlawfully presented his firearm with the
intent of threatening another with imminent bodily injury or apprehension.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the court finds the defendant not guilty on all charges. The defendant is acquitted
and discharged by this court.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 19th day of June, 2022.
/s/ Eagleeye785
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
