ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-679
Plaintiff
v.
NIKKATSA
Defendant
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2022, the Ridgeway Department of Justice filed a criminal information charging the
Defendant with one count of 3 S.C.C. § 10, one count of 5 S.C.C. § 5, and one count of 4 S.C.C. § 3. The trial
was held in absentia, both beginning and concluding on December 10, 2022.
JUDGMENT
The Government alleges that the Defendant committed the crimes of second degree murder, unlawful
discharge of a firearm, and petty theft in the murder of HarryTShepherd. The government admitted two exhibits
to this effect, Exhibits A and B.
Exhibit A depicts HarryTShepherd, the victim, at the Faris Fresh Fades shop on or about the date of
August 8, 2022. While at the shop, a blue vehicle drives up to the shop at a high speed and abruptly stops. Once
the vehicle stops, the Defendant (who was driving) exits the vehicle and draws a firearm, using it to shoot and
subsequently kill Mr. Shepherd. The Defendant then went to Mr. Shepherd’s corpse and picked up a Cline 911
firearm including its ammo, totalling up about $400 in value. Exhibit B is an exhibit used to further confirm the
identity of the person driving the blue vehicle as the Defendant.
To prove guilt of second degree murder, the Government must demonstrate the following elements; (1)
the individual was in possession of an object capable of causing death; (2) the individual used said object to
cause the death of another individual; and (3) the individual did so intentionally and knowingly. The Court finds
that these elements were proven by the Government.
To prove guilt of unlawful discharge of a firearm, the Government must demonstrate the following
elements: (1) the defendant discharged a firearm, (2) this discharge was done within city limits, (3) this was
done without legal means. The government, having proven these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, has
fulfilled its burden. It is important to note that the statute for this offense does not mention intent or suggest it,
contrary to the Defense’s argument. For that reason, the Defendant is found guilty of Unlawful Discharge.
In order to prove guilt of petty theft, the Government must demonstrate the following elements; (1) the
individual stole an item; and (2) the item in question has a value less than $500. To further address the
Defense’s closing argument, they assert that because Mr. Shepherd had died, the Cline 911 firearm and its
ammunition no longer belonged to him; invalidating the Government’s allegation. Petty theft is committed
when an individual “steals an item that has a value less than $500,” 4 S.C.C. § 3 (emphasis added). The Court
concurs with the Defense’s assertion that the property no longer belongs to the victim upon their death, and that
it belongs to the government. With that in mind, the statute in question does not distinguish stealing from the
state or an individual. It is a criminal offense when one steals an item, not any specific individual’s item. For
that reason, the Court finds that the Defendant did commit petty theft.
The Defense asserted the Blockburger test, a test which challenges the compatibility of two different
charges in that it compares whether or not an individual may be convicted for two charges stemming from the
same criminal incident if the crimes do not contain one unique element when compared to the other offense.
They challenge the compatibility of counts one and two. As said previously, second degree murder is comprised
of three plain-text elements, being that (1) the individual was in possession of an object capable of causing
death; (2) the individual used said object to cause the death of another individual; and (3) the individual did so
intentionally and knowingly. Defense contends that unlawful discharge does not have any elements differing
from those of second degree murder, making it a lesser-included offense of second degree murder, effectively
barring conviction for that offense on that basis. The Court disagrees. In second degree murder, the unique
element is causing the death of another individual. In unlawful discharge, the unique elements are discharging a
firearm and doing so within city limits.
Unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime that imposes a strict liability; in that it criminalizes conduct
where the offender “need not have had any criminal intent at all.” Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137.
Generally, it omits the mental element to a crime. See, e.g., United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975).
Unlawful discharge of a firearm does not have any apparent or strongly implied requirement for criminal intent
– rather it only requires that an individual discharge a firearm without legal means to do so. Second degree
murder is a crime of intent – unlawful discharge is not. For that reason, the Court finds that double jeopardy
does not apply in respect to counts one and two.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the Defendant;
- GUILTY TO COUNT ONE - SECOND DEGREE MURDER - 5 S.C.C. § 5
- GUILTY TO COUNT TWO - UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM - 3 S.C.C. § 10
- GUILTY TO COUNT THREE - PETTY THEFT - 4 S.C.C. § 4
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 11th day of December, 2022.
/s/ David Clarke
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
