People v kingofoats 2025 MCrim 01
People of Minecraft v kingofoats [2025] MCrim 01
| Date of judgment | 4th August 2025 |
| Judicial Officer | Magistrate Ben |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence | 1 month imprisonment |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
ORDER 01 by Magistrate Ben
Dated 27 July 2025
Introduction
[1] Effectively, during the defense’s opening statement, they brought forth a motion to dismiss based on territorial jurisdiction. While this exact wording was not initially used, the general principle of leniency in Nighteye (Appellant) v LordDeadlyOwl (Respondent) [2020] SDSC 5 points the court towards not requiring precise legal language in a community predominantly populated by people inexperienced with legalese.
- [1.1] While the court would have preferred that a jurisdictional dispute be brought during pre-trial, the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 Article 5 lists motions to dismiss as “able to be made at any point in the trial or pre-trial”.
- [1.2] Motions to dismiss are generally taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party<ref name="usern">See SD v usernameselected [2025] Crim 73 [2]</ref>.
Considerations
[2] The parties and the law raise various ways to dispose of this motion; this court gives priority to the most narrow aspects first<ref name="kingred">See ppatpat and brandmal, ex parte thesigmasquad (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 13 [16] and the underlying In re Replacement of KingRed31 [2020] SDSC 21. </ref>.
[3] The Criminal Code 2020 Article 1§5-6<ref name="legis">Since legislation is constantly being amended, the links attached herein should (to the greatest extent possible) connect directly to the revision contemporaneous to this order. This degree of effort has not been done with cited case law, as such is revised much less frequently.</ref> outlines a set of circumstances where a crime may be prosecuted even when outside normal jurisdiction so long as:
- [3.1] The crime directly affects SimDemocracy [or the Colony] or persons in SimDemocracy [or the Colony] or had the potential of doing so, and
- [3.2] The accused has, or had, the capacity and intention of participating in SimDemocracy [or the Colony].
[4] The court takes judicial notice<ref name="notice">Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 Article 13§4-5</ref> of SD v DominaX273 [2025] Crim 7 and determines that the alleged victim DominaX is a “person” within the core territory of the SimDemocracy Discord server. This case makes credible allegations that the crime had the potential to directly affect the Colony and/or persons thereof.
[5] The defendant is both a member of the SimDemocracy Discord server and of the Minecraft Colony. At a minimum, this demonstrates capacity of participation. Initially, this case proceeded in absentia, until it was established that the defendant had been part of the Discord server all along. This shows there is (or was previously) intention of participating in SimDemocracy. The combination of presence in the Minecraft server and being a person in SimDemocracy credibly establishes the defendant satisfies the conditions for prosecution.
Order
[6] Sufficient jurisdiction has been established for this trial to continue. The motion to dismiss is not granted.
FINAL JUDGMENT by Magistrate Benbookworm
Introduction
[1] In the first criminal trial from the Minecraft Colony of SimDemocracy, the accused kingofoats is charged with a count each of griefing and theft from alleged victim DominaX273. Overall, the State seeks a ban of a month and a half.
- [1.1] During the proceedings, a motion was made regarding the extent of territorial jurisdiction of SimDemocracy and the Colony. This matter has been well addressed in Order 01 of this case, Reference re Minecraft Jurisdiction [2025] MC 01 (Ref re MC Jurisdiction), and Reference re SimDemocracy Bill of Rights Jurisdiction [2025] SDSC 3 (Ref re SD BoR).
Griefing
[2] The charge of griefing is the simpler one, and is addressed first herein. Article 3 of the Minecraft Criminal Code 2025 defines it as “purposefully destroying a build that you do not own”.
[3] Exhibit 2 from the prosecution is a pair of screenshots. One shows a raft created by a human user, with components, food, and other material floating on the water and laying on the remaining structure. The other screenshot is a log showing the defendant placed three (3) TNT blocks, dropped a firework rocket, and added a pair of redstone torches. The logs then show two entries of TNT breaking a chest. All of the above logs indicate the events happened very close together in space and time.
- [3.1] Exhibit 2.1 is a map of the surrounding area, including relevant coordinates.
- [3.2] The prosecution submitted an affidavit from the user DominaX273 attesting that they created the structure previously located at or about the coordinates shown above.
[4] The defense claims the evidence within Exhibit 2 and 2.1 doesn't have coordinates to connect the specific build in the screenshot with the coordinates in the logs, but did not raise an objection to the affidavit from the user DominaX273, other than that the alleged victim had already been banned from all of SimDemocracy for 18 months in SD v dominax273 [2025] Crim 7. The defense did not raise any counter arguments that the defendant was the owner of the raft or of any build destroyed by TNT at the logged coordinates.
- [4.1] The legislated definition of griefing does not consider who built the destroyed creation, other than not being owned by the accused.
[5] As used in SD v Mooklyn [2021] Crim 4 and SD v Panzzrr [2025] Crim 54, the court turns to Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely. Placing TNT is purposeful. TNT broke a build. The defendant did not create the destroyed build.
[6] There is not a reasonable doubt that the defendant purposefully destroyed a build not owned by them. The defendant is guilty of griefing.
Theft
[7] The charge of theft was more vigorously contested by the defense. Article 2 of the Minecraft Criminal Code 2025 defines theft as “taking items from another player without permission”. In reverse order, this establishes three requirements:
- The defendant did not have permission.
- The items were from another player.
- The defendant took items.
[8] The defense did not dispute the lack of permission. The affidavit from DomixaX273 includes a screenshot with signs against trespass and theft.
[9] Not in these exact words, but the defense disputes that items were taken from another “player”, on account of the alleged victim DominaX273 having been banned from all of SimDemocracy since February 2025.
- [9.1] Order 01 makes it abundantly clear that jurisdiction is established for this case. The basis under Article 1 of the SimDemocracy Criminal Code 2025 is reiterated here:
Ҥ5. A person is defined as any user who has, or had, the capacity and intention of participating in SimDemocracy.
§6. If a crime, which directly affects SimDemocracy or persons in SimDemocracy or had the potential of doing so, is committed outside of the jurisdiction given in this article, it may be prosecuted regardless, provided the person under prosecution satisfies the principles laid out in §5.”
- [9.1.1] The charged crime meets the first half of §6 as it directly affects a “person” in SimDemocracy and the Colony (the alleged victim had the capacity and intention of participating in SimDemocracy and the Colony).
- [9.1.2] The defendant is a person in SimDemocracy and the Colony per §5, so the second half of §6 is met and this alleged crime may be prosecuted.
- [9.2] The alleged victim DominaX273 counts as a player here. This is strongly reinforced by both Ref re MC Jurisdiction and Ref re BoR.
[10] Exhibit 1 shows a screenshot of the inventory of a chest. The contents are alleged to be items confiscated by the Governor upon arresting the defendant, and that at least some of the items were stolen from the victim's personal storage, including a full set of diamond armor. But no additional evidence was offered to support the assertions.
[11] Exhibit 3 pertains to allegations of previous theft, and is not relevant to establishing guilt for these charges (though maybe relevant to sentencing). The prosecution did not elaborate on how alleged theft occurring prior to the codification of the Minecraft Criminal Code 2025 establish guilt on this occasion.
[12] Unlike Exhibit 3, Exhibit 1 does not have any logs indicating that the defendant removed these items from the victim’s belongings. It is conceivable that the items were picked up among the floating items shown in Exhibit 2, but such was not alleged by the prosecution.
[13] The prosecution has not carried their burden to prove the provenance of the items shown in Exhibit 1. The defendant is not guilty of theft.
Sentencing
[14] The prosecution recommended imprisonment of one month. This is the statutory minimum, so no mitigating circumstances can lower it. The court is loath to exceed the recommended sentence barring exceptional circumstances. The defendant is sentenced to one month of imprisonment, minus time served.
Footnotes
<references />