Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
2,287 characters extracted
—
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-568
Plaintiff
v.
IAMTHEBESTLAITH
Defendant
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
ARGUMENT: REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER NOT MET
Within the case there was a misdemeanor that was pled guilty too. The defendant is not against
admitting their wrongdoings within the situation, that being owning an altered blunt weapon. The defendant
pled not guilty to the attempted murder charge for one simple reason, it was not attempted murder.
The main issue with exhibit A of the video is that it lacks context. The video starts off with a chase, so
there is no room to be able to understand the context of the situation, so how could anyone know if something
previous happened that would lead the individual to believe they were going to be killed? The video ends with
the defendant putting the bat away. In the interviews that followed, the individual unseenarmy claimed they
believed that they were going to be killed by the defendant. They did not have a weapon, or anything on them,
that would provide a motive for the defendant to kill this individual. They also never went below half health, so
they were never in close proximity to death.
There is a major lack of context within the presented evidence, making it impossible to determine what
the intentions were from the defendant. The interviewee, unseenarmy was never in close proximity to death,
didn’t have a reason to be killed, and stated that. The most important piece of information though is the
defendant put the weapon away before the end of the video, this clearly shows that the defendant did not have
an obvious intention of murder. Without the context of the video beforehand, there is no previous intention of
murder. Without obvious or previous intention for murder, the prosecution fails to adhere to the rule such that
“in order to find the defendants guilty of attempted murder, the State must prove that, at the time of the
commission of the act, the defendants intended to kill the victim.” See Spradlin v. State 569 N.E.2d 948 (1991).
Because of this the defense submits a motion for a directed verdict as there is not sufficient evidentiary basis to
prove attempted murder.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ WithinCode
Public Defenders Office
RSB#17112
Document record
File size
98.9 KB
Uploaded
Jul 25, 2022 12:00 PM
Filed
Jul 25, 2022 12:00 PM
Filing code
CRIMINAL_COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
state
Notes
Motion for Directed Verdict.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/iIhdDZzX)
