Facts: On March 6th, 2026, Loger (the ∆) sent a message saying that “Three strikes amendment is cringe I can't ping @SDBI anymore.”
Defense admitted one piece of evidence, an affidavit from the ∆.
This affidavit swore that the Defendant pinged the SDBI as “a means of political protest to state my dissatisfaction with the three strikes amendment.”
Issue: Did the ∆ have the requisite mens rea to create criminal liability?
Rules:
Actus reus: For a defendant to perform the actus reus required for a conviction under Art. 22a, they must
(1) file a report to or mass summon the SDBI or other legal authorities;
(2) in any way; and
(3) the summoning is manifestly without legal merit.
Mens rea: the defendant “knew or should have known” the claim was manifestly without legal merit.
Negligence Standard
Holding: Yes. In the absence of patent reasons, objective indicia may signal intent, or lack of such.
Reasoning:
Since the Defense admitted that "he used the SDBI ping,” actus reus was satisfied in argumentation.
For mens rea: While "affidavits inherently hold less weight” than other evidences or testimony, “as the person writing the affidavit did not have to come into Court and be cross-examined by the opposing party," they do provide a valuable insight as to the subjective mens rea of the defendant in cases that, without such, would essentially function as strict liability.
Evidence showed that a debate occurred before the summons where various persons discussed the Three Strikes amendment. During this, ∆ interjected with the offending message. The exhibit establishes no reason by way of illegal activity for the ping, so the Court looked for objective indicia as to why the ∆ sent the ping.
While Defendant’s affidavit swears that his intention was to summon the SDBI because he believed that the amendment overbore upon the SDBI, the message itself reads as a joke meant to provoke the SDBI, a “pushing of the envelope."
Multiple other reasons were found that the court considered to show negligence. SeeId. at 11.
Because these factors showed negligence, mens rea was satisfied
Judgment: Convicted of Art. 22a and sentenced to a mute of 8 hours.