ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-601
Plaintiff
v.
CHUXRO
Defendant
BACKGROUND
On August 14, 2022, the state filed an information against the defendant alleging violations of 3 R.S.C §
10, 5 R.S.C § 5, and 5 R.S.C § 8. The defendant failed to appear; a not guilty plea was entered on their behalf.
The government admitted two exhibits as a part of their case in chief, exhibits A and B. These exhibits
depict the Defendant’s alleged crimes. Exhibit A does not depict the defendant’s presence. The State called one
witness, chexburger, the alleged victim of the defendant’s criminal conduct.
JUDGMENT
This court is satisfied that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is
guilty of second-degree murder based off of their actions depicted in state’s exhibit B. The defense argues that,
because there is a gap between the events depicted in state’s exhibit A and state’s exhibit B, the defendant
cannot be guilty. This court rejects that argument; the gap between the events depicted in the exhibits is moot.
State’s exhibit B clearly depicts a criminal homicide in the second-degree.
With that being said, state’s exhibit B does not depict a criminal homicide within city-limits or within a
residential area, therefore this court finds that the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is guilty of unlawful discharge of a firearm.
In regards to count three, the defense argues that the State has failed to identify the weapon the
Defendant used in exhibit B to be a police-grade weapon. During the direct examination of chexburger, the
weapon was identified as a ‘para’. This is the only mention of what ‘grade’ the weapon used was during the
entirety of the trial.
This testimony is inadmissible for a number of reasons, however, the presiding Magistrate allowed it
onto the record, so it would be unfair to the government for this court to retroactively sustain the defense’s
objection without allowing the government time to hone in on that specific issue. With that being said, this court
will proceed as if the testimony was and is admissible.
However, this court finds the admissibility of the testimony to be moot. The government has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this weapon used was police-grade, even when this court assumes the
testimony is admissible. This court, in holding otherwise, would be required to make several presumptions, of
which this court is expressly forbidden from making, for example that the defendant is ineligible for
government office, that ‘para’ refers to a Para 17, and that a Para 17 is a uniquely police-issue firearm.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing 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 - 5 R.C.C § 05 - UNLAWFUL
DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM
- NOT GUILTY ON COUNT THREE OF THE INFORMATION - 5 R.C.C. § 08 UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION OF POLICE-GRADE EQUIPMENT
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 30th day of August, 2022.
/s/ Hecxtro /s/ DavidLClarke
CHIEF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
