Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

7,674 characters extracted

—

STATE OF RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT The State of Ridgeway Plaintiff v. Mayflow9r Defendant _________________________________/ DOCKET No. RSC-CM-2786 MOTION TO DISMISS GOVERNMENT’S INFORMATION DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE GOVERNMENT’S CRIMINAL INFORMATION The Defendant, by and through his undersigned counselor, moves to dismiss the government’s criminal information for procedural and constitutional deficiencies. Attached is a brief in support of the Defendant’s motion attached hereto. Derogatoryyy SB#19119 Counsel of Record For the Defendant STATE OF RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT The State of Ridgeway Plaintiff v. Mayflow9r Defendant _________________________________/ DOCKET No. RSC-CM-2786 BRIEF IN SUPPORT DEFENDANT’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE GOVERNMENT’S CRIMINAL INFORMATION I. INTRODUCTION Around the date of May 4, 2024, the State of Ridgeway, or the government, filed their case against the Defendant furnishing two offenses against him. These two offenses were involuntary manslaughter, in violation of 3 R.C.C. § 06, and evasion, in violation of 3 R.C.C. § 09. Defendant contends these laid offenses alleging that the deficiencies in detail prejudiced the Defendant in his ability to adequately defend his conduct to the court. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS III. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................4 IV. ARGUMENTS............................................................................................................................ 5 A) The government’s minimal description prejudices the Defendant......................................... 5 B) Dismissal is reasonable under these circumstances................................................................6 V. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................7 III. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996)..................................................................................... 5 In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968)............................................................................................... 5 Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948)........................................................................................ 5 Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 83 (1908).................................................... 5 Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339 (1984).............................................................................. 7 Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545 (1979)......................................................................................... 7 Statutes Page 3 R.C.C. § 06…………………………………………………………………………………… 5 2 R.C.C. § 09…………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Court Rules Page Ridg. Rules Crim. Pro. 3(g)(1)..................................................................................................... 6 Constitutional Provisions Page Ridg. Const. Art. I, sec. VI…………………………………………………………………...… 5 IV. ARGUMENTS A) The government’s minimal description prejudices the Defendant. Individuals facing a criminal action in Ridgeway courts have a right “to demand the cause and nature of the accusation” that the government has made. See Ridg. Const. Art. I, sec. VI. Though, more importantly, “[a] defendant's right to notice of the charges against which he must defend is well established.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1996) (citing In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948)). Knowing the nature of the offense that the government is charging a defendant with is fundamental to allowing defendants a fair chance to mount their defense because it is well-founded that “the accused is entitled to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and that a charge must be sufficiently definite to enable him to make his defense and avail himself of the record of conviction or acquittal” Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 83 (1908) (emphasis added). The government has described the Defendant’s alleged unlawful conduct in the criminal information by pleading that: “On or about the 5th of March 2024, at the Rafael Mechanic Shop in Ridgeway County, which is located in the State of Ridgeway, defendant mayflow9r committed the offense of involuntary manslaughter by disregarding the life and safety of others and causing the death of a suspect incapacitated by a conducted electrical weapon by shooting him multiple times while ignoring a known or obvious risk.” The government has essentially parroted the elements of the first charged offense. Involuntary manslaughter lays an onus upon the government to prove that the Defendant engaged in an act while “ignoring a known or obvious risk, or disregard[ing] the life and safety of others and caus[ing] the death of another.” See 3 R.C.C. § 06. The government decided to plead both sides of the statute alleging that the Defendant engaged in an act while disregarding the life and safety of others and ignoring a known or obvious risk. However, the government has not pleaded the risk which was allegedly “known or obvious” which is required information to satisfy the Defendant’s right to know the nature of the offenses charged against him. The government has further laid a charge of evasion claiming that: “On or about the 5th of March 2024, at the Rafael Mechanic Shop in Ridgeway County, which is located in the State of Ridgeway, defendant mayflow9r committed the offense of evasion by willfully fleeing from a peace officer(s) whilst they are attempting to perform their duties.” The government has once again only parroted the elements of evasion which is “[t]he act of willfully fleeing from peace officer whilst they are attempting to perform their duties, granted the peace officer has identified themselves and used proper devices such as verbal commands or police equipment to stop the suspect from a reasonable distance.” See 2 R.C.C. § 09. The government has failed to plead any details about the incident apart from the date and venue and a threadbare recital of the elements of the offense, but did not include how the Defendant’s conduct falls in violation of the statute. B) Dismissal is reasonable under these circumstances. Both of the offenses furnished against the Defendant are procedurally defective because in order for an information (complaint) to be sufficient the complaint, inter alia, must “convey to the court the facts constituting the basis for the information.” See Ridg. Rules Crim. Pro. 3(g)(1). Dismissal is an appropriate remedy at this early stage of these proceedings where a constitutional violation has been discovered because “dismissal of an indictment is in many ways less drastic than remedies resorted to in other contexts where constitutional rights have been violated.” Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339, 360-61 (1984) (quoting Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545 (1979)). Dismissal of an indictment is arguably more extreme than dismissing the government’s criminal information. V. CONCLUSION The court should dismiss to reach the appropriate remedy for the deficiencies in the government’s criminal information. May 7, 2024 Palmer, RW Derogatoryyy SB# 19119 [email protected] Counsel for the Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of May, 2024, a copy of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the government’s criminal information was served upon the opposing counsel via direct messages on Discord. May 7, 2024 Palmer, RW Derogatoryyy SB# 19119 [email protected] Counsel for the Defendant

Defendant_s_Motion_to_Dismiss_%5B_State_v._Mayflow9r_%5D.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record