IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
State of Ridgeway
v.
badass14k,
Defendant.
___________________________/
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CASE: RSC-CM-3204
JUDGE: HON. BOMMES
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant, badass14k’s Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant’s counsel filed a Motion to dismiss the case against Defendant in its entirety. The
Court permitted The State of Ridgeway, represented by prosecutor Commander1567, to enter a
reply to the Motion to Dismiss. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED, for
the reasons explained therein.
I. BACKGROUND
This criminal case was heard before the court on the 22nd of July, 2024. The then
prosecutor (JustTheJudge1) filed a criminal information and the Investigative Report containing
the affidavit of probable cause. Initially, based on the affidavit, the court saw sufficient grounds
to continue the trial and summon the defendant.
The prosecution was not able to locate the defendant, and thus a summons by publication
was issued. The defendant appeared before the court the next day (the 23rd of July, 2024). After
verifying the identity of the person before us, it was established that this was indeed the
defendant.
Mid-proceedings, the assigned prosecutor resigned from the DOJ, hence a successor was
appointed: Commander1567. The defense counsel was also substituted due to ignoring the
pre-trial obligations completely, he did not contest as he: “had no intentions to pursue this case”
due to other interests. JamesGardai was appointed as their successor.
JamesGardai filed a motion to dismiss on the 6th of August 2024. He argued two main
points that, according to him, warrant dismissal:
I. Court holds no personal jurisdiction over the defendant (the court failed to attach
charging documents to summons once it was publicly distributed).
II. Criminal information is insufficient
As a result of these points made, the only remedy was dismissal of this case in its
entirety. The court interprets this as a dismissal with prejudice. The State entered a reply to the
MTD on August 9th 2024. They argue that: “A bill of particulars is the correct remedy within
this matter”.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The defense counsel cited Rid. R. Crim. P. 6(a)(1). This reads as follows: “A defendant
not under arrest or otherwise in custody, except as provided in subdivision (a)(2) of this rule, be
notified of the criminal proceedings against him and of the date of the return day by means of a
summons. A copy of the criminal information or indictment shall accompany the summons”.
Indeed, a copy of the criminal information should have accompanied the summons. The
court acknowledges this mistake. However, this is not why the case is being dismissed. The
second argument cites that, primarily, a defendant has the right to know what they are being
charged with, and that the language in a criminal information must sufficiently state how a
charge applies.
The state rebutted, arguing that a bill of particulars can remedy this situation, they quote
United States v. Hess 124 U.S. 483, 487 (1888), which states the following: “the statutory
language ‘must be accompanied by such a statement of facts and circumstances as will inform
the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is
charged.’ ”
The court is not convinced that this obligation has been met by the prosecution. The
descriptive text explaining how the charges apply is vague, generic and hardly convincing. The
purpose of a bill of particulars is to “make the allegations more specific”. See Larkins v. State,
429 P.3d 28, 47 (Wyo. 2018).
It is not meant to substitute poorly written charging documents. Furthermore, a bill of
particulars, as stated, is meant as an addition to the charging document, should all information be
laid out but certain facts remain unclear, a bill of particulars may be requested. Although this
should be scarcely required given that "No bill of particulars is required if the particulars are
already in the charging document" see State v. Arousa, No. 32242-4-III, at0 (Wash. Ct. App. June
16, 2015). To summarize: a bill of particulars should not have to be requested ordinarily, nor
should one have to be granted should the information contain the particulars in question.
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The charges are DISMISSED without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Milton, Ridgeway
County, Ridgeway, this 11th day of August, 2024.
/s/ bommes
BOMMES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to: Defendant
Commander1567, Prosecutor
JamesGardai, Counsel for the Defendant / Public Defender
