SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
CITATION: In re tr33sinthew00ds,
RSC-CV-868
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
January 20, 2023
BETWEEN:
tr33sinthew00ds
Applicant
and
theburnerphone
Respondent
RULING ON APPLICATION
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE KOALA4IIFE
I. Introduction
[1] This was an application by tr33sinthew00ds for a writ of habeas corpus made
under s. 2.5 of the Judiciary Act in relation to his imprisonment on January 15, 2023
on charges of second-degree murder and unlawful discharge of a firearm. Review was
granted on January 16, 2023 and the government filed a brief in opposition on behalf
of the respondent on January 18, 2023.
II. Legality of Arrest
[2] If a writ of habeas corpus is to issue, the first question concerns the legality of
the arrest: In re Zachisbeast, RSC-CV-367, at para. 3. An arrest is lawful if the arresting
officer had a judicial warrant authorizing the arrest; or if he or she had reasonable and
probable grounds to believe that a crime was committed, is being committed, or will
be committed, proof of which lay on the respondent.
[3] Respondent submitted an affidavit in accordance with s. 2.5(b)(v)(2) of the
Judiciary Act, which I will partially reproduce below:
“I witnessed the plaintiff kill another person, using what appeared to be a fully-
automatic firearm.”
[4] I conclude from the affidavit that the respondent had probable and reasonable
grounds to believe, and did believe, that the applicant knowingly caused the death of
another person, and that it was not done for lawful purposes, amounting to second-
degree murder.
[5] The affidavit also provided that the respondent believed the scene of the offence
to be in the vicinity of “the BloxMart parking lot”: see affidavit at para. 2. I therefore
conclude that the respondent had probable and reasonable grounds to believe, and did
believe, that the applicant discharged a firearm within city limits and that it was not
done for lawful purposes.
III. Actual Innocence
[6] Having determined that the arrests for both charges were lawful, we next ask
whether the applicant was actually innocent: In re Zachisbeast, at para. 5. A criminal
record can be sealed upon the applicant demonstrating actual innocence, proof of which
lay on the applicant. As In re Zachisbeast puts it at para. 3,
“The standard is such that a reasonable and well-informed jury could not
convict the petitioner in a hypothetical trial if they were aware of those facts,
and those facts were admissible evidence.”
[7] Applicant asserts that he acted in self-defence—a full affirmative defence to
both charges. I would emphasize that both the nature of an affirmative defence and the
actual innocence part of habeas corpus applications puts the burden of proof squarely
on the applicant.
[8] The applicant plead satisfactory facts which, had they been proven true, would
create an affirmative defence and release applicant from criminal liability with respect
to the charges he is contesting, hence why review was allowed in the first place.
[9] The applicant, having submitted no evidence of any form, has not met his
burden to prove actual innocence or entitlement to any affirmative defences.
IV. Conclusion
[10] The application is denied. No remedy is to issue.
Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway this 20th day of January, 2023.
“koala4Iife”
Judge koala4Iife
Counsel for the applicant tr33sinthew00ds: ElloM8HowAreYou, Ridgeway.
Counsel for the respondent theburnerphone: totoro987123 and EffortlessBrit,
Ridgeway.
