Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
3,622 characters extracted
—
ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-396
Plaintiff
v.
PERSONALFEELINGS
Defendant
BACKGROUND
On the 28th of May 2022, the Ridgeway Justice Department filed an information against the defendant
alleging violations of 3 R.C.C § 09, 02b, 4 R.C.C § 01, and 5 R.C.C § 04. The defendant failed to appear,
therefore the matter was held in absentia. Trial began on the 7th of June and concluded on the 8th of June.
State’s Exhibit A, a 43 second clip, depicts the acts in which the defendant is allegedly liable for. This
exhibit is supported by three other exhibits, each depicting an interview with the complainant, a witness, and the
defendant.
The state argues the defendant’s guilt on several factual assertions: (1) the defendant unlawfully entered
a building with the intent to commit ‘a crime’ (2) the defendant committed a homicide in the course of
executing assertion one (3) the defendant exhibited a firearm in a threatening manner and (4) the defendant used
this firearm to threaten the complainant.
For the most part, the defense’s entire argument is based on a contention of intent. The defense argues
that the state failed to demonstrate why exactly the defendant engaged in this type of behavior and therefore
cannot be guilty of the alleged offenses, all but count three placing great emphasis on the evaluation of an
alleged violator’s mindset.
JUDGMENT
This court is inclined to concur with the defense, though not entirely. First-degree murder is a very
serious charge and the law places great importance in evaluating the circumstances of a homicide before
determining guilt of such a crime. In this specific matter, the state argues that the “defendant murder[ed] the
complainant in the course of committing burglary.” Therefore, in order for the defendant to be guilty of
first-degree murder, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) committed a murder
and (2) was committing (or attempting to commit) the act of burglary.
However this court is not inclined to believe that the state has proven that the defendant was in fact
committing the crime of burglary because of the fact that not one single time is the ownership of the property in
which these events occurred discussed. The state has failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant’s entry into the property was unlawful. Therefore, the defendant cannot be guilty of first-degree
murder nor burglary because the stipulation that the defendant’s entrance into the property was unlawful-a
critical element to the state’s case- went completely undiscussed.
In regards to counts three and four, this court is satisfied that the state has proven the defendant’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense made no attempt to argue that the defendant’s drawing of a firearm was
in self-defense, and it is evident through state’s Exhibit A that this use of the firearm was in a threatening
manner. Additionally, it is also evident that the defendant used a deadly weapon (a firearm) to knowingly
threaten another person causing them apprehension of imminent bodily injury.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court finds the defendant;
- NOT GUILTY ON COUNT ONE - 3 R.C.C § 09 - FIRST-DEGREE MURDER
- NOT GUILTY ON COUNT TWO - 4 R.C.C § 01 - BURGLARY
- GUILTY ON COUNT THREE - 5 R.C.C § 04 - BRANDISHING
- GUILTY ON COUNT FOUR - 3 R.C.C § 02b - AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 9th day of June, 2022.
/s/ Hecxtro
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
Document record
File size
100.1 KB
Uploaded
May 29, 2022 12:00 PM
Filed
May 29, 2022 12:00 PM
Filing code
CRIMINAL_COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
state of ridgeway
Notes
RSC-CM-396 RULING.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/c8eKm0ZS)
