Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

2,247 characters extracted

—

STATE OF RIDGEWAY State of Ridgeway ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-974 Plaintiff v. burritobrawler222 Defendant RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL INFORMATION DISTINGUISHES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHARGES The defendant’s motion argues that the criminal information doesn't differentiate between the Unlawful Possession of Government-Issued Equipment and Unlawful Stockpile of Government-Issued Equipment charges. However, the criminal information clearly lists the name of each charge above the description for the charge. Furthermore, the criminal information specifies the amount of each unlawful item possessed, which would tell the defendant whether he was being charged with Unlawful Possession of Government-Issued Equipment or Unlawful Stockpile of Government-Issued Equipment. DOUBLE JEOPARDY WASN’T VIOLATED Each separate possession of a Stetson M2-A constituted an offense. The Unlawful Possession of Government-Issued Equipment statute prohibits possessing a piece of government-issued equipment inside an improper storage device. In this case, the defendant allegedly possessed multiple Stetson M2-A’s, therefore constituting multiple violations of the law. The charges meet the Blockburger test as the defendant allegedly possessed multiple Stetson M2-A’s, so the counts contain elements different from each other. Furthermore, if the motion to dismiss is granted solely on the basis of a violation of double jeopardy, the entire case shouldn’t be dismissed. Instead, only counts three, four, and nine should be dismissed. THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION ISN’T VAGUE The criminal information gives the defendant adequate notice of the charges against them, and differentiates between the charges. The criminal information lists the type of illegal item possessed, the car type the item was possessed in, the amount of items possessed, and the license plate of the car. All of this information adequately informs the defendant of the charges against them and differentiates between all the counts, satisfying the 6th amendment requirement to have adequate notice of the accusations. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the court should deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ andysofun andysofun, RSB#17143

Response_to_Motion_to_Dismiss_-_burritobrawler222.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record