IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TROOPER_NOVICH,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CM-3381
MOTION TO DISMISS
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant Trooper_Novich, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby submits this
motion to dismiss the criminal case against the defendant in full.
ARGUMENT
I. THE STATE FAILED TO MEET THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS
“When a party has provided all discovery required by this rule or by court order, it shall
file with the court a Certificate of Compliance. The certificate shall state that, to the best of its
knowledge and after reasonable inquiry, the party has disclosed and made available all items
subject to discovery other than reports of experts, and shall identify each item provided. If
further discovery is subsequently provided, a supplemental certificate shall be filed with the
court identifying the additional items provided.” Rid. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(3). Indeed, the word
"shall" is ordinarily the language of command. See Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482, 485.
Looking over to the submissions that the State has given, there is no submission of a certificate
of compliance as required by the rules. The only thing that the State has included in their
discovery is that “the State of Ridgeway, to the best of their knowledge, has disclosed and
provided every piece of evidence available.” This statement is not enough to supplement a
certificate of compliance. It does not include, e.g., inter alia, “and after reasonable inquiry” and
“other than reports of experts”. It has been a whole two days since the State has submitted their
discovery, with no certificate of compliance submitted and with time allocated for pretrial and
discovery over. By not submitting a certificate of compliance, the State’s discovery obligations
are not complete, rendering their discovery insufficient. This Court ought to dismiss as a
sanction for this inaction.
II. THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
Filing a criminal case against a person–let alone a public official–is no matter to be
treated lightly; serious accusations are being levied. The “commencement of criminal
proceedings itself infringes on liberty interests.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 297 (1994)
(Stevens, J., dissenting).When this happens, the State ought to be held at a high standard because
after all, “[a] plaintiff is required to conduct their due diligence in pursuing an action before the
court, and because of this pursuit, there may be a prejudice against the defendant. An
unnecessary delay of the proceedings can elongate the period during which the defendant is
prejudiced. The delay of proceedings itself presents an actual prejudice in a defendant as it
creates an opportunity for the defendant’s reputation to suffer injury as well as their
employment, hence one of the many reasons why a constitutional protection exists in favor of
grand jury indictments for public officials.” State v. BattalionGavin 1. Rid __ (2022). This Court
“holds the power to dismiss with prejudice as a sanction intended to prevent undue and
unnecessary delays within the judicial process.” Id. In this case, it is clear that it must utilize this
power. This situation is analogous to the BattalionGavin situation, where the State failed to meet
their discovery obligations. This Court should follow precedent and dismiss this case with
prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss the criminal case against the
defendant in its entirety.
Date: 08/08/2024
_________________________________
JamesGardai, Esq.
Senior Associate
CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES
Ridgeway Bar No. 24101
652 Palmer Blvd, Palmer Plaza Suite 6020
Palmer, Ridgeway
fishfromocean
Attorney for Defendant
MatthewSandringham
Counsel of Record
Clarke, Feelings & Associates, LLP.
Managing Partner
R. Bar. No. 16103
Attorney for Defendant
