Frozen snapshot of the SimDemocracy Archives, captured 2026-05-05. Read-only mirror; no edit, no live updates. mypenjustbroke.com

In re Criminal Code Article 3, Section 3 2025 SDSC 8

From SimDemocracy Archives
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In re Criminal Code Article 3, Section 3 [2025] SDSC 8

Date of judgment 16th May 2025
Justices
  • Chief Justice TheLittleSparty
  • Justice Ivy Cactus
  • Justice Syndicality
Held Criminal Code 2020 Article 3, Section 3, when applied at the end of a trial, violates Double Jeopardy and is thus unconstitutional.
Ruling 3-0
Applicable precedent
  • The Supreme Court may act sua sponte when not doing so leads to gross miscarriages of justice that may be impossible to remedy at a later date, [2]
  • A judge has the duty of informing the Department of Justice to pursue under different charges when the prosecutor’s are attempting to prosecute under a non-applicable statute for what may be a ToS violation, [4]
  • The defendant being found not guilty being used as grounds for mistrial violates double jeopardy, [5]

MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Ivy Cactus

(with Chief Justice TheLittleSparty and Justice Syndicality agreeing)

Introduction

[1] Over the course of State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Crimsonexus (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 7, both parties submitted argumentation regarding a scenario where the court did not remand. The prosecution asked that the court order a mistrial under the authority of Criminal Code 2020 Article 3, Section 3, which reads 

“§3. If a charge is not appropriate for a given action, yet may qualify as a criminal offense regardless, the judge may inform the prosecution and declare a mistrial.”

[2] This issue did not come to a head in that case, as the court indeed remanded the case back to the inferior court for a new ruling. There are issues, though, where the possible remedies resulting from a future review have wide-reaching implications and, in order to uphold the rule of law and nip these issues in the bud before it becomes near impossible to contain their repercussions at a later date. As a result, the court finds it necessary to rule beyond the scope of the issue at hand (see: In re Trial and Pre-Trial Procedures Act [2020] SDSC 4). The court, as such, has initiated this judicial review sua sponte, gathering the views of the state and the respondent in its questions to the parties for State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Crimsonexus (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 7.

Double Jeopardy

[3] Criminal Code 2020 Article 3, Section 3 allows judges to inform the prosecutors if an action does not fit the definition of one charge but may fall under another, and declare a mistrial so that it may begin again under more appropriate charges.

[4] This, under most circumstances, is fine. Indeed, if the Department of Justice is attempting to seek a non-applicable charge for what could be a Terms of Service charge, it raises from a simple ability to an obligation of the presiding judge to inform the prosecutors that the charge is not applicable. This is one of the many checks and balances our system has to guarantee the judiciary performs its duty both to the citizens of SimDemocracy and to the Terms of Service of the platforms we operate on.

[5] Issues arise, though, when this section is applied at the conclusion of a full trial. Article 19, Section 6 of the Constitution clearly states, “No legal entity may be tried again on the same or similar charges and on the same facts following a valid acquittal or conviction.” This means, then, that verdicts which declare the defendant not guilty of the pursued charge, but declare a mistrial so that a new charge may be pursued, violate the Right to a Fair Hearing and are unconstitutional.

[5.1] In a more practical sense, to give a sense of the issues, allowing this form of mistrial erodes the defendant’s rights in trial to almost nothing. In the words of prolific public defender Palmer, in his argumentation in State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Crimsonexus (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 7, “[allowing these mistrials] creates a very unbalanced system where the State can charge whatever they want, in hopes of getting the harshest sentences or scaring defendants into unfair plea deals, and then getting a second chance at getting a guilty verdict after they lose the first case.”

Implications

[6] Thankfully, as far as the court can tell, this section has only been applied at the end of a trial once, in SD v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] Crim 20. The court will summarily remand this case back to the inferior court for a new ruling in light of the unconstitutionality of the original verdict. The court will also remand SD v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] Crim 28 to the inferior court, so that the court may eject any charges based upon information already covered in SD v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] Crim 20, if applicable.

Verdict

[7] It is unconstitutional to apply Criminal Code 2020 Article 3, Section 3 following the completion of a trial where the defendant received a not guilty verdict, and any cases where such happened are to be remanded back to the inferior courts for resentencing.

Postscript

[8] The court extends a sincere thank you to Discord Supervisor Hackerman for his unpaid work reading over and editing faulty grammar in both this verdict and State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Crimsonexus (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 7, it doesn’t go unnoticed.

Citations

<references />