SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
CITATION: State of Ridgeway v. TALAN10101,
RSC-CM-2124
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
2024-02-06
BETWEEN:
State of Ridgeway
Plaintiff
and
TALAN10101
Accused
JUDGEMENT ON MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE KOALA4IIFE
I. Test for directed verdict
[1] The question to be asked when considering a defence motion for a directed
verdict is the same as that asked by a judge during a preliminary inquiry, namely
whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed
could return a verdict of guilty. For a directed verdict to issue, this question must be
answered in the negative.
[2] There are a couple of different ways to phrase this question, and I include here
because I apply them interchangeably:
• Is there some evidence that establishes each constituent element of the
offences?
• Could the evidence, if believed, reasonably support an inference of guilt?
• Has the government adduced some evidence of culpability for every
essential element of the crime for which the government has the
evidential burden?
[3] Before explaining what I will do, I should first say what I will not do. This case
does not rely on circumstantial evidence, so I will not engage in any weighing of the
evidence. I will not test the quality or reliability of admissible evidence. I will not draw
factual inferences or assess credibility.
[4] Where the government’s case is based entirely on direct evidence—witness
testimony as to the precise fact which is the subject of the issue on trial—the task is
straightforward. By definition, the only conclusion that needs to be reached in such a
case is whether the evidence is true. Thus, at this stage, the judge must determine
whether the government has presented direct evidence as to every element of the
offences charged.
II. Count 1 – conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice
[5] I accept the testimony of daviddevvil2 as true and at face value for the purpose
of evaluating whether an inference of guilt as to count 1 could be sustained.
[6] The elements of obstruction of justice are:
• interference with the process of justice, and
• hinderance of official from performance of duties.
[7] It is unclear to me how the accused’s conspiracy—which I accept was a
conspiracy—to amend the offence of official misconduct would hinder any official.
First, the Justice Department is not barred by statute or common law to prosecute
offences for which the accused, on conviction, is only liable to a fine. Second, there is
no legal basis for the suggestion that “criminal charges” refer only to offences for which
the accused, on conviction, is liable to a term of imprisonment.
[8] I also find no evidence of culpability for interference with the process of justice.
Had the accused’s conspiracy been carried out, the changes to the law would
necessarily have taken effect after any alleged official misconduct took place.
Consequently, a court, if it were to convict the accused on that count, would have had
right to apply the sanctions available at the time the alleged offence occurred.
Additionally, courts in Ridgeway are not, insofar as I have read, legally barred by
statute or common law from imposing a term of imprisonment in respect of an offence
for which a fine is the only sanction available to a peace officer. This is to say the
accused’s conspiracy, had it materialized, would not have had any effect on the process
of justice.
[9] I would note that it is not clear to me what this supposed charge of official
misconduct is in reference to, but for the purposes of thus judgement, I have assumed
that the transaction leading to the charge is not in any way connected to this present
Indictment and this present matter.
[10] For these reasons, I find that the evidence does not establish each constituent
element of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice. A directed verdict is entered as
to count 1. I find the accused not guilty as to count 1.
III. Count 2 - conspiracy to commit official misconduct
[11] I accept the testimony of daviddevvil2 as true and at face value for the purpose
of evaluating whether an inference of guilt as to count 2 could be sustained.
[12] The elements of official misconduct (unauthorized exercise) are:
• being a public servant,
• an act relating to his office,
• an act which is an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, and
• knowledge that such act is unauthorized.
[13] I find that the accused, being a senator, is a public servant.
[14] I find that the act of amending the criminal code relates to the office of senator.
[15] I do not find that the act of legislating was an unauthorized exercise of the
official functions of senator. Lawmakers routinely propose changes to sentences they
feel are inappropriate for certain offences. The fact that a proposed change was
introduced or contemplated by the senator who might benefit from that change, while
it might run afoul of conflict of interest laws or be a cause of sanctions on ethical
grounds, does not produce criminal liability. Thus, a conspiracy to do this act is not
unlawful.
[16] For these reasons, I find that the evidence does not establish each constituent
element of conspiracy to official misconduct. A directed verdict is entered as to count
2. I find the accused not guilty as to count 2.
IV. Count 3 - conspiracy to commit official misconduct
[17] I accept the testimony of daviddevvil2 as true and at face value for the purpose
of evaluating whether an inference of guilt as to count 3 could be sustained.
[18] The elements of official misconduct (unauthorized exercise) are:
• being a public servant,
• an act relating to his office,
• an act which is an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, and
• knowledge that such act is unauthorized.
[19] I find that the accused, being a senator, is a public servant.
[20] I find that the acts of maintain, producing, and altering voting records relate to
the office of senator.
[21] I find that the act of changing the Senate’s voting record to incorrectly represent
the votes of the Senate was an unauthorized exercise of the official functions of senator
and that the accused knew, by effect of the conspiracy, that this act was unauthorized;
or in the alternative, that the accused ought to have known that changing the Senate’s
voting record to incorrectly represent the votes of the Senate was an unauthorized
exercise of the official functions of senator.
[22] The conspiracy is complete when the accused agreed to make physical changes
to the Senate’s voting record and did so with the intent to cause that voting record to
incorrectly represent the votes of the Senate; in this case, by carrying them out without
question and with glee.
[23] For these reasons, I find that the evidence does establish each constituent
element of conspiracy to official misconduct. A directed verdict will not issue as to
count 3.
V. Count 4 - criminal fraud class II
[24] I accept the testimony of daviddevvil2 as true and at face value for the purpose
of evaluating whether an inference of guilt as to count 4 could be sustained.
[25] The elements of criminal fraud class II are:
• misrepresentation of material fact,
• knowledge of misrepresentation, and
• intent to defraud a public official.
[26] I find that causing the Senate’s voting record to incorrectly represent the votes
of the Senate is a misrepresentation of material fact of the highest order.
[27] I find that the accused was aware that his act would cause a misrepresentation,
both as a matter of immediate and conscious knowledge and further for the cause of a
conspiracy.
[28] I find that the immediate person to be materially defrauded by the accused’s
misrepresentation is the Lieutenant Governor, a public official. The multiple other
people who could foreseeably be defrauded by the accused’s misrepresentation are
senators and judges, all of whom are public officials. Indeed, the evidence adduced to
suggests that the accused’s misrepresentations occurred continuously and defrauded
multiple people at each instance. At the very least, though, the evidence establishes
each constituent element of criminal fraud class II at least once, and thus guilt as to at
least one count.
[29] For these reasons, I find that the evidence does establish each constituent
element of criminal fraud class II. A directed verdict will not issue as to count 4.
VI. Count 5 – aiding and abetting official misconduct
[30] I accept the testimony of daviddevvil2 as true and at face value for the purpose
of evaluating whether an inference of guilt as to count 5 could be sustained.
[31] The elements of official misconduct (unauthorized exercise) are:
• being a public servant,
• an act relating to his office,
• an act which is an unauthorized exercise of his official functions,
• knowledge that such act is unauthorized.
[32] I find that the accused, being a senator, is a public servant.
[33] I find that the acts of maintain, producing, and altering voting records relate to
the office of senator.
[34] I find that the act of changing the Senate’s voting record to incorrectly represent
the votes of the Senate was an unauthorized exercise of the official functions of senator
and that the accused knew, by effect of the conspiracy, that this act was unauthorized;
or in the alternative, that the accused ought to have known that changing the Senate’s
voting record to incorrectly represent the votes of the Senate was an unauthorized
exercise of the official functions of senator.
[35] Aid and abetment are offered when the accused did make physical changes to
the Senate’s voting record with the intent to cause that voting record to incorrectly
represent the votes of the Senate; in this case, by acting on the advice of and acting on
behalf of daviddevvil2.
[36] For these reasons, I find that the evidence does establish each constituent
element of aiding and abetting official misconduct. A directed verdict will not issue as
to count 5.
VII. Conclusions
[37] The motion for directed verdict is granted in part and denied in part.
[38] A directed verdict of not guilty is entered as to counts 1 and 2. No directed
verdict will issue as to counts 3 through 5.
Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway on February 6, 2024.
“koala4Iife”
Judge koala4Iife
Acquittals entered: counts 1 and 2.
Trial to proceed on counts 3 through 5.
Counsel for the plaintiff State of Ridgeway: RyanJSyndicate, Ridgeway.
Counsel for the accused TALAN10101: DorkJacob and Arthur_Chen,
Ridgeway.
