Bench Trial Verdict - Chambers of Judge Chen
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-2284
v.
MAYOLLID
Defendant
BENCH TRIAL VERDICT
I. INTRODUCTION
THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon a criminal bench trial that was held over Discord
between April 27, 2024 and April 30, 2024. The Defendant was charged with a single count of
Attempted Murder (R.C.C. § 3.08) for allegedly “attempt[ing] to kill Jepaloon using a salvo pistol” on
January 29th, 2024. Information ¶ 1. At the bench trial, the Parties called several witnesses, including
the victim, the defendant, and several bystanders, to give their accounts, and sometimes even their
personal opinions, regarding what happened on January the twenty-ninth. Upon due consideration of
their testimony, as well as the facts, evidence, and the arguments presented by counsel, the Court finds
the Defendant guilty as charged.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 29th, 2024, GeorgFernandez was standing in the parking lot of the Palmer Police
Department near his personal vehicle. Witnesses claim that GeorgFernandez began displaying
aggressive behavior, including making threats and ramming his car into theirs. In response,
rapcreeper22 shot GeorgFernandez in what he claims to be self-defense with a Salvo revolver.
Jepaloon, an off-duty Park Ranger who observed the shooting, proceeded to step out of his vehicle and
deliver two fatal shots to rapcreeper22. When asked why he killed rapcreeper22, Jepaloon claimed that
he was acting under the provisions of the Good Samaritan Act, a law that allows citizens to be immune
from criminal prosecution if they “in good faith, assist an on-duty member of emergency service in the
prevention of a crime or in the suppression of an active crime scene can not be charged with a crime.” 7
R. Stat. § 3108. Following the killing of rapcreeper22, the Defendant, Mayollid drew his own Salvo
revolver and began to open fire at Jepaloon, striking him several times before Jepaloon was able to
overtake him and shot him dead.
At the bench trial, the prosecution presented video evidence (States Exhibit A), depicting the
shooting, and called the victim, Jepaloon, to the stand. Jepaloon affirmed that he shot rapcreeper22 in
the defense of GeorgFernandez and sought solely to suppress, what he deemed, as an active threat to
the public. The defense called two bystanders. The initial witness, rapcreeper22, asserted that
GeorgFernandez had been threatening him and that he shot and killed GeorgFernandez in self-defense.
The second bystander, Dominodownload, supported rapcreeper22's account of the threats and added
that, in his own view, he would have reacted similarly by firing at GeorgFernandez. Additionally, the
defense presented the Defendant, Mayollid, who contended that he opened fire on Jepaloon while
"attempting to escape while acting within self defense.”
III. DISCUSSION
“In a bench trial, the court assumes the role of the fact finder.” S.T.S. International, Ltd. v.
Laurel Sea Transport, Ltd., 932 F.2d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Elevating Boats, Inc. v. Gulf Coast
Marine, Inc., 766 F.2d 195, 199 (5th Cir. 1985)). Therefore, this court will assess not only the legal
questions but also the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The majority of the testimony provided during the
bench trial was notably irregular and, in some instances, entirely inappropriate, particularly when
attorneys solicited speculation from witnesses without objection from the other side. Seeing that “[i]t is
the duty of the judge to evaluate the evidence presented at a bench trial.” and “judges commonly
encounter inadmissible evidence that they are presumed to disregard when making decisions," the court
will simply ignore all of the irrelevant testimony. San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 801
(10th Cir. 2014); Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 69, 132 S. Ct. 2221, 2235, 183 L. Ed. 2d 89 (2012)
(quoting Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 346, 102 S.Ct. 460, 70 L.Ed.2d 530 (1981) (per curiam)).
After all, this is the Mayollid's trial, not rapcreeper22's, Jepaloon's, or GeorgFernandez's.
In order to obtain a conviction, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the Defendant
committed the “act of attempting to kill another individual.” R.C.C. § 3.08. “attempted murder requires
proof of a specific intent to kill the victim.” Stewart v. Duckworth, 93 F.3d 262, 266 (7th Cir. 1996).
Intent “may, and generally must, be proven circumstantially." United States v. Stoker, 706 F.3d 643,
646 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Throughout the trial, every witness,
including the defendant, agreed: Mayollid had the intent to kill Jepaloon, and had Jepaloon not acted
first, Mayollid would have carried out the act himself. There being no dispute among parties that the
Defendant indeed intended to end the life of Jepaloon; the discrepancy instead lies in whether the
Defendant was justified in his actions. This court finds that he was not.
Defense counsel has suggested that Mayollid, in attempting to kill Jepaloon, was acting under
the Good Samaritan Act, which states that “An individual can not be charged with a crime while
defending another individual from significant harm.” 7 R. Stat. § 3201. However, even if such defense
was an acceptable excuse for vigilante justice, no threat was present. Rapcreeper22 was already dead
and could not be harmed further, so Mayollid was not defending anyone at that point. Neither witness
testimony nor the state's exhibit A portrayed Jepaloon engaging in any behavior that could reasonably
be interpreted as a significant threat intending harm to another—the standard the defendant must satisfy
if they intend to invoke the Good Samaritan Act. Mayollid’s actions were simply an act of vengeance,
not self-defense or defense of another.
IV. CONCLUSION
After reviewing all of the evidence presented at the bench trial, including the State’s Exhibit A,
and having considered all of the arguments made by counsel, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, Mayollid, is guilty of
Attempted Murder (R.C.C. § 3.08) as charged in count one of the State’s Information.
2. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.
Hon. Arthur_Chen
JUDGE, Superior Court for
Ridgeway County, Ridgeway
