ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-432
Plaintiff
v.
AIWAYSPROPER
Defendant
BACKGROUND
On the 6th of June 2022 the Ridgeway Justice Department filed an information alleging a violation of 3
R.C.C § 10 on two counts. The defendant failed to appear and the matter continued without their presence. The
government entered one exhibit, state’s Exhibit A, which depicts the incidents allegedly showing the murder of
one individual, Mr. sinznevermisses, inside of his home.
JUDGMENT
The defense points out in their case-in-chief that the government has failed to demonstrate malicious
intent because, although state’s Exhibit A was entered and authenticated, accompanying witness testimony was
weak at best and failed to demonstrate this critical element of the charged crime. The defense cites State of
Ridgeway v. IllusionalMonkey1, RSC-CM-260 (2022), in support of this argument being grounds for acquittal.
The question posed by the defense is if this court can independently examine admitted evidence to make
judgments as to the existence or absence of a fact, or, in this case, an element. The defense argues no, and
further argues that this court cannot accept the arguments of the government because those arguments would be
entirely speculative if not supported by witness testimony.
However, this court is inclined to believe that such a characterization, and thus, the grounds for posing
this question, are greatly oversimplified. Government’s second witness, Mr. Rainy, testified to a number of
topics, more specifically, they testified that they believed the defendant acted with malicious intent because,
“[the] defendant killed the complainant and ignored the whole other person in the room.”
However, when asked to describe what they understand malicious intent to entail, the witness faltered.
The defense requested that the witness was impeached and some of their testimony was struck. This court struck
their response to one of the government’s questions explicitly asking if the defendant had malicious intent or
not. With that being said, no other testimony was struck; there was no obvious reason to strike the entirety of
the witness's testimony.
This is because the removal of the defendant’s intent from the scope of the witness’s testimony does not
invalidate their testimony about what, in their expert opinion, happened on the day in question. The presence of
this testimony gives this court evidence upon which to make judgment on the defendant’s guilt beyond the mere
admittance of state’s Exhibit A. This testimony negates the need for this court to independently fact-find, as the
defense suggests would be necessary for a guilty verdict to be rendered. With this in mind, this court can
examine the evidence and be firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the levied charge, thus indicating a
guilty verdict on charge one is necessary.
The opposite is true for charge two, entirely because there is no admitted evidence at all to indicate a
second murder and therefore guilt on the second charge.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court finds the defendant;
- GUILTY ON COUNT ONE OF THE INFORMATION - 3 R.C.C § 10 - SECOND-DEGREE
MURDER
- NOT GUILTY ON COUNT TWO OF THE INFORMATION - 3 R.C.C § 10 -
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 8th day of August, 2022.
/s/ Hecxtro
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
