Short answer. It follows the civil case process. Rule 125, Section 2 states that the procedure for Supreme Court review of Court of Appeals decisions in criminal cases shall be the same as in civil cases. The criminal nature of the underlying case does not change how the review itself is procedurally handled.
What the law says
The procedure for the review by the Supreme Court of decisions in criminal cases rendered by the Court of Appeals shall be the same as in civil cases.
Rule 125, Section 2 — Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. Read the full provision →
Review procedure, not trial procedure, is what's borrowed here
Section 2 addresses specifically the step of Supreme Court review of a Court of Appeals decision in a criminal case — not the trial or the appeal to the Court of Appeals itself. For this particular review stage, the rule adopts the same procedure used to review civil case decisions. That narrower focus is reflected in the review procedure itself, which does not simply repeat the trial-level rules used to try the original criminal charge.
Why civil review procedure was chosen as the template
By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court for review of a Court of Appeals ruling, the focus has narrowed to questions the Supreme Court will typically examine through petition-based review, much like in civil appeals — rather than re-litigating guilt or innocence as a matter of first instance. This choice reflects that the review stage is functionally similar across civil and criminal matters, even though the underlying subject matter differs considerably.
Practical effect for someone seeking review
A party seeking Supreme Court review of a criminal decision from the Court of Appeals should look to the civil-case review procedure — covering matters such as the mode and periods for seeking review — rather than assuming a distinct criminal-only process applies at this particular stage. Confusing the two — assuming a distinct criminal review track exists — risks missing deadlines or filing under the wrong mode of review entirely.
How this connects to Section 1's broader default
Section 2 operates alongside the broader default in Section 1, which borrows Court of Appeals procedure for the Supreme Court generally. Section 2 narrows that borrowing specifically for the review of a Court of Appeals criminal decision, pointing instead to civil-case review procedure for that one step. Read together, the two sections show a rule structure that reaches for the nearest established procedural template — Court of Appeals practice, or civil review practice — rather than building a separate criminal-specific process for every stage. This borrowing is limited strictly to the review stage; it does not convert the underlying criminal case into a civil one for any other purpose, such as the standard of proof applied to the original charge or the constitutional protections owed to the accused, which remain governed by criminal law throughout.