SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-679
Plaintiff
v.
NIKKATSA
Defendant
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT B
Pursuant to Ridgeway Rules of Evidence 12, Defendant Nikkatsa moves this Court to
strike Plaintiff’s Exhibit B given its circumstantial use to prove that “a person's character or a
character trait[]acted in accordance with the character or trait.” Rid. R. Evid. 13(a)(1). The very
use of character evidence in the preceding context provided is strictly prohibited by the
Ridgeway Rules of Evidence. With such prohibition from our culminating rules of the Court, this
Court is vested with the responsibility to strike any evidence in which conflicts with such rules or
provisions. This Court should strike the inadmissible character evidence as prohibited.
OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENT
A. The In-Game Screenshots of Defendant’s Avatar
Defendant objects to the admission of the Screenshot of his avatar, a function
supplemented by the ROBLOX game engine, and asks that the Screenshot in its entirety is
prohibited from use in the above-styled matter.
To be admissible, a Defendant may produce evidence: (1) of the defendant's pertinent
trait; (2) where the identity of the first aggressor or the first to use deadly force is in dispute; and
(3) known to the defendant prior to the incident in question of the victim's reputation for
violence, of specific instances of the victim's violent conduct, or of statements made by the
victim that caused reasonable apprehension of violence on the part of the defendant. These three
prongs, however, still do not provide leeway to the State to use character evidence to prove that a
person acted in accordance with a trait. In this case, there is no validity to the admissibility of
Exhibit B, as there are no exclusions permitted by the Ridgeway Rules of Evidence.
The context of “identification” as read in the State’s discovery as to the purpose of
Exhibit B shows clearly the prohibited use of character evidence by the Ridgeway Rules of
Evidence, and thus ought not be permitted to be admitted in this case.
B. The Screenshots Can Not Be Adequately Authenticated
The Ridgeway Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 54(a)(b), set a clear threshold for
authenticating evidence that does not meet the standard of self-authenticating evidence. In this
case, Exhibit B is not determined to meet the standard of self-authenticating evidence, and thus
has to meet external requirements to be adequately authenticated.
When authenticating evidence that is not declared self-authenticating, there are specific
methods to authenticate evidence. Specifically, Rule 54 provides that evidence can be
authenticated with: (1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge; (2) Non Expert Opinion About
Handwriting; (3) Comparison by an Expert Witness or the Trier of Fact; (4) Distinctive
Characteristics and the Like; (5) Opinion About a Voice; (6) Evidence About Public Records; (7)
Evidence About a Process or System; and (8) Electronic or Digital Communication. Exhibit B,
however, can not be adequately authenticated by any of the aforementioned processes set forth
under Rule 54 of the Rules of Evidence. Evidence, in general, “must be authenticated before it
can be introduced.” Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 449 (1963). With the lack of
admissible authentications, the Plaintiff can not introduce this evidence.
In this case, the Plaintiffs fall short of authentication of Exhibit B, and thus ought not be
permitted to be admitted in this case due to the lack of permissible authentication of the article of
evidence in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant asks this Court to strike the identified portions of
Plaintiffs’ submitted Evidence and grant to Defendant all other relief to which they are entitled.
By and through the Defendant’s counsel,
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/
stickza, RSB#17120
Public Defender’s Office
