IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
The State of Ridgeway,
v.
mayflow9r,
Defendant.
___________________________/
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 05-2024-CM-002786
JUDGE: HON. KOALA4LIFE
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant, mayflow9r’s Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant’s attorney entered a Motion to Dismiss on May 8, 2024. The Court permitted the
Prosecution to enter a reply to the Motion to Dismiss. Both sides requested a hearing in which
various arguments were raised. Based on the foregoing arguments, Defendant’s Motion is
DENIED, for the reasons explained herein.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant’s counsel entered the Motion, alleging that the Criminal Information was
ambiguous. As a result, the defendant's attorney deems that it hinders the defense’s capability to
properly prepare their defense. The prosecution states that the Criminal Information alone is not
responsible for providing the whole factual basis on which the charges are brought. They refer to
the Affidavit of Probable Cause (hereafter shortened to APC). They state that the APC and
Criminal Information must be seen as two parts of a whole, rather than focussing solely on one
document.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A criminal information must contain three elements in order to sufficiently find probable cause:
I. Guilty act (actus reus, there must have been an act).
II. Identity (the suspect must be known).
III. Guilty mind (mens rea, the person must be aware of their actions, intent must be present).
An act is generally defined as a “bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary”. In this
instance, the defendant did act by grabbing his shotgun and firing it. As psychological evaluation
within the state of ridgeway is next to impossible, it is surmised that grabbing a weapon warrants
the awareness of its use. In this instance, it is plausible to assume that the defendant drew his
weapon with the intent to neutralize the person.
Despite the Criminal Information being subpar in terms of factual basis, it meets the standard for
admissibility in this court. The defense argues that the document is insufficient, however: a
charging document couched in the language of the statute is sufficient to charge the statutory
offense. This constitutes the bare minimum for charging an individual (See State v. Blackmon,
130 N.C. App. 692 (1998)).
The court does concur that both the CI and APC are subpar and could do with more detail,
however: they sufficiently allege the facts for each count.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court holds that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Milton, Ridgeway
County, Ridgeway, this 15th day of May, 2024.
/s/ bommes
BOMMES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to: Defendant
Singhski, Prosecutor
Derogatoryyy, Counsel for the Defendant
