CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138 (Chk. S. Tr. 2017)
CHUUK STATE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARE ROMAN,
Defendant.
CSSC CRIMINAL CASE NO. 129-2016
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Camillo Noket
Chief Justice
Trial: January 17-18, 2017
Decided: February 13, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: JK Kaminaga
Sherry Jane Edmond (supervising)
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Defendant: Charleston L. Bravo
Office of the Public Defender
P.O. Box 754
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
* * * *
The FSM and Chuuk Constitutions both provide criminal defendants the protections of due process, which require the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 142 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
The government bears the burden to prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and in proving guilt, the government may use either direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 142 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
Direct evidence is evidence, which if believed, proves the existence of facts in issue without inference or presumption. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts and circumstances from which
the existence or nonexistence of facts in issue may be inferred. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 142 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
Transferred intent is generally defined as, in the unintended-victim (or bad-aim) situation - where A aims at B but misses, hitting C – it is the view of the criminal law that A is just as guilty as if his aim had been accurate. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 142 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When A aims at B with a murderous intent to kill, but because of a bad aim he hits and kills C, A is guilty of the murder of C. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 142 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When A aims at B with intent to injure B but, missing B, hits and injures C, A is guilty of battery of C. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 142 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When the doctrine of transferred intent applies, the burden of proof still remains on the government, but the state need not prove the defendant intended to harm the actual victim, but merely the intended victim. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 142 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
The state needs only to prove intent as to one of the intended victims and does not have to prove intent specifically directed at each of the actual victims. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 143 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
Before a defendant can be convicted, it must first be shown that he had the intention to cause great bodily harm to someone. Merely because he shot the wrong person makes his crime no less heinous. It is only necessary that the state of mind exist, not that it be directed at a particular person. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 143, 144 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
Under Chuuk state law, an individual commits assault with a dangerous weapon if the individual attempts to cause or purposely causes with a dangerous weapon bodily injury to another person. "Bodily injury" includes physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition, and a "dangerous weapon" is any firearm, or other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether inanimate or animate, which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 143 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
An individual who manufactures, produces, uses, sells, possesses, acquires, or disposes a slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana has violated Chuuk state law. The legislature has defined possession as the holding of the slingshot or pachinko, arrow or dart or nikapich or Indian pana, which includes keeping inside or outside the house or within the premises of the owner, inside any vehicles, offices, or anywhere which a person suspected to be in possession placed it. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 143 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
One who unlawfully offers or attempts, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harm to another commits assault. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 143 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
An assault and battery occurs when an individual unlawfully strikes, beats, wounds or otherwise does bodily harm to another. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 143 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
Where, although the defendant did not intend to injure the actual victim, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence showing that he intended to assault another with a dangerous weapon, this intent to harm the other was transferred the actual victim when the defendant's poor aim caused him to hit the four-year old daughter of his intended target. As a result, there was sufficient intent to find that that defendant purposely caused bodily injury to the victim with a dangerous weapon. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 144-45 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When the government established that the defendant took a machete and attempted to hack it at another person's neck, which would be a use of the machete in a manner capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, the government has met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an assault with a dangerous weapon. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 145 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When, although the government did not present any direct evidence to prove its point, it presented compelling circumstantial evidence that before the victim was shot the defendant had been arguing with the witness, at which time he threatened her with non-specific bodily harm, and within seconds of his threat a dart was shot from the defendant's location toward the witness's location and hit her daughter, who she was holding in her arms, the government has met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did unlawfully use a slingshot. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 145 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When an eyewitness saw the defendant with a slingshot in his possession, this account of the defendant holding an slingshot in his hand is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did unlawfully possess a slingshot. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 145 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When, before the victim was shot the defendant had been arguing with the witness, at which time he threatened the witness with non-specific bodily harm and within seconds of this threat, a dart was shot from the defendant's location toward the witness's location and hit her daughter, who she had been holding in her arms, and when no one else was near the defendant when the dart was shot, the government sufficiently met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed an assault against the victim. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 145-46 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When the government, relying on victim testimony during trial, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant ran at the victim with a machete, attempting to hack at his neck, and that when the victim attempted to knock the machete from the defendant's hands the defendant punched him in the nose, the government sufficiently met its burden to prove that the defendant committed an assault. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 146 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When, before the victim was shot the defendant had been arguing with the witness, at which time he threatened her with non-specific bodily harm and within seconds of this threat, a dart was shot
from the defendant's location toward the witness's location and hit her daughter, who she was holding in her arms, and when no one else was near the defendant when the dart was shot, the government sufficiently met its burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an assault and battery against the victim. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 146 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
When the government, relying on victim testimony during trial, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant ran at the victim with a machete, attempting to hack at his neck, and that when the victim attempted to knock the machete from the defendant's hands the defendant punched him in the nose, the government sufficiently met its burden to prove that the defendant committed an assault and battery. Chuuk v. Roman, 21 FSM R. 138, 146 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017).
* * * *
CAMILLO NOKET, Chief Justice:
The Defendant, Mare Roman, was charged on November 17, 2016, with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, two counts of assault and battery, two counts of assault, one count of unlawful use of a slingshot with arrow or dart, and one count of unlawful possession of a slingshot with arrow or dart. This matter proceeded to trial on January 17-18, 2017.
A. Count I: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Toward J-Rina Davis
The first issue before the Court is to determine whether or not the Defendant committed the requisite elements of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon toward one J-Rina Davis beyond a reasonable doubt.
B. Count II: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Toward Greg Willy
The second issue before the Court is to determine whether or not the Defendant committed the requisite elements of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon toward one Greg Willy beyond a reasonable doubt.
C. Count III: Unlawful Use of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart
The third issue before the Court is to determine whether or not the Defendant committed the requisite elements of Unlawful Use of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart beyond a reasonable doubt.
D. Count IV: Unlawful Possession of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart
The fourth issue before the Court is to determine whether or not the Defendant committed the requisite elements of Unlawful Possession of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart beyond a reasonable doubt.
E. Count V: Assault Toward J-Rina Davis
The fifth issue before the Court is to determine whether or not the Defendant committed the
requisite elements of Assault toward one J-Rina Davis beyond a reasonable doubt.
F. Count VI: Assault Toward Greg Willy
The sixth issue before the Court is to determine whether or not the Defendant committed the requisite elements of Assault toward one Greg Willy beyond a reasonable doubt.
G. Count VII: Assault and Battery Toward J-Rina Davis
The seventh issue before the Court is to determine whether or not the Defendant committed the requisite elements of Assault and Battery toward one J-Rina Davis beyond a reasonable doubt.
H. Count VIII: Assault and Battery Toward Greg Willy
The eighth issue before the Court is to determine whether or not the Defendant committed the requisite elements of Assault and Battery toward one Greg Willy beyond a reasonable doubt.
The FSM and Chuuk Constitutions both provide criminal defendants the protections of due process, which require the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Alaphonso v. FSM, 1 FSM Intrm. 209, 217-23 (App. 1982); FSM v. Wainit, 10 FSM Intrm. 618, 621 (Chk. 2002); Andohn v. FSM, 1 FSM Intrm. 433, 441 (App. 1984). Therefore, the government bears the burden to prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Ludwig v. FSM, 2 FSM Intrm. 27, 35 (App. 1985). In proving guilt, the government may use either direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both. FSM v. Ting Hong Oceanic Enterprises, 8 FSM Intrm. 166, 171 (Pon. 1997). More specifically, "direct evidence is evidence, which if believed, proves the existence of facts in issue without inference or presumption. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts and circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of facts in issue may be inferred." Id.
Although there is little to no precedent of the common law Doctrine of Transferred Intent in Chuuk or the FSM as a whole, the doctrine is widely used in other common law jurisdictions. Transferred intent is generally defined as,
In the unintended-victim (or bad-aim) situation – where A aims at B but misses, hitting C – it is the view of the criminal law that A is just as guilty as if his aim had been accurate. Thus where A aims at B with a murderous intent to kill, but because of a bad aim he hits and kills C, A is uniformly held guilty of the murder of C. And if A aims at B with a first-degree-murder state of mind, he commits first degree murder as to C, by the majority view. So too, where A aims at B with intent to injure B but, missing B, hits and injures C, A is guilty of battery of C.
WAYNE R. LAFAVE & AUSTIN W. SCOTT, JR., HANDBOOK ON CRIMINAL LAW, ch 3, § 35, at 252-53.
Many jurisdictions that recognize the Doctrine of Transferred Intent recognize its use for a variety of criminal charges. People v. Lovett, 283 N.W.2d 357, 8 A.L.R.4th 952 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979); State v. Locklear, 415 S.E.2d 726, 729-30 (N.C. 1992); State v. Livingston, 420 N.W.2d 223, 229 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988); Mordica v. State, 618 So. 2d 301, 303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993); United States v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Where the Doctrine of Transferred Intent applies the burden of proof still remains on the government, however, the state need not prove the defendant intended to harm the actual victim, but merely the intended victim. "An instruction on transferred intent
indicates that the [state] need only prove intent as to one of the intended victims and does not have to prove intent specifically directed at each of the actual victims." Commonwealth v. Melton, 763 N.E.2d 1092, 1099 n.11 (Mass. 2002). In other words, "[b]efore defendant can be convicted it must first be shown that he had the intention to cause great bodily harm to someone. Merely because he shot the wrong person makes his crime no less heinous. It is only necessary that the state of mind exist, not that it be directed at a particular person." Lovett, 283 N.W.2d at 359, 8 A.L.R.4th at 955.
A. Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, Counts I & II
Under Chuuk State Law (CSL) 6-66, § 407, an individual commits Assault with a Dangerous Weapon if they attempt to cause or purposely causes bodily injury to another person with a dangerous weapon. Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 407(1). "Bodily injury" includes "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition." Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 401(1). A "dangerous weapon" is defined as "any firearm, or other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether inanimate or animate, which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury." Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 401(2).
B. Unlawful Use of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart, Count III
The unlawful use of a slingshot with arrow or dart is chargeable under Chk. S.L. No. 09-08-12, § 4. An individual has violated Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4 if they "manufacture, produce, use, sell, possess, acquire or dispose a slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana." Chk. S.L. No. 09-08-12, § 4. Under those terms they "shall be guilty of unlawful manufacture or production, use, sale, possession, acquisition or disposition of slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana." Id.
C. Unlawful Possession of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart, Count IV
The unlawful possession of a slingshot with arrow or dart is chargeable under Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4. An individual has violated Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4 if they "manufacture, produce, use, sell, possess, acquire or dispose a slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana." Chk. S.L. No. 09-08-12, § 4. Under those terms they "shall be guilty of unlawful manufacture or production, use, sale, possession, acquisition or disposition of slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana." Id. Possession has been defined by the legislature to mean "holding of the slingshot or pachinko, arrow or dart or nikapich or Indian pana which shall include keeping inside or outside the house or within the premises of the owner, inside any vehicles, offices or anywhere which a person suspected to be in possession placed it." Chk. S.L. No. 09-08-12, § 3(6).
D. Assault, Counts V & VI
An individual commits assault when they “unlawfully offers or attempts, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harm to another. Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 408(1).
E. Assault and Battery, Counts VII & VIII
Assault and Battery occurs where an individual "unlawfully strike, beat, wound or otherwise do bodily harm to another." Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 409(1).
Evidence adduced at trial, if found credible by the court and viewed in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, established that on the afternoon of October 16, 2016, the following incidents occurred: 1. Defendant, Mare Roman was seen angrily chasing his wife up to the hill in Neowa, Seletiw in Iras Village Weno to beat her up. He did not catch her. 2. Victim, J-Rina Davis, a 4 year old girl, was with other children and was playing in the vicinity where the chase was in progress. The children started screaming because they were scared of the defendant. 3. Becksina Puekea, the mother of J-Rina Davis, heard her daughter cry and ran to her to take her into their house while she was still crying. 4. When the defendant saw Becksina Puekea walking with her daughter, Defendant Mare cursed at her and stated he would beat her up, although he did not specify the means by which he would beat her. 5. Becksina Puekea turned her back toward the defendant to enter the house while carrying her daughter, J-Rina Davis. At that time she saw that the victim had been hit by a slingshot dart and was injured, the dart having punctured the three middle fingers of her right hand. 6. Although, she did not see who shot the slingshot, she believed that defendant Mare Roman shot the slingshot as the dart had originated from the direction behind her and the defendant was the only person standing behind her prior to the shooting. 5. Victim Greg Willy, a Chuuk State Police Officer, testified that he was present nearby, but had not personally seen the defendant shoot the victim with a dart. However, he also testified that he believed the defendant was the shooter because he saw Defendant Roman chasing his wife with a slingshot and then heard the cries of the children after the victim was shot. Additionally, Officer Willy stated that Defendant Roman aimed a slingshot at him, personally. 6. While attempting to apprehend Defendant Roman, Greg Willy was punched in the nose by the defendant. 7. After the defendant punched Willy, the defendant grabbed a machete and swung it at Willy's upper chest to cut him. Greg Willy deflected the machete by quickly moving away from Defendant Roman without being injured. Greg Willy immediately called the Public Safety Office to assist him in arresting Defendant Roman. Moment later, police officers arrived and took the defendant into custody.
A. Count I: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Toward J-Rina Davis
Under the law of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, the state bore the burden to prove that Defendant Roman purposely caused bodily injury toward J-Rina Davis with the use of a dangerous weapon. The government argued that Defendant Roman shot a dart in the direction of Becksina Puekea and instead hit the victim, J-Rina Davis, causing her bodily injury when the dart punctured three of her fingers. Although the government did not present any direct evidence to prove their point, they presented circumstantial evidence. Before the victim was shot the defendant had been arguing with Witness Becksina Puekea, at which time he threatened her with non-specific bodily harm. Within seconds of his threat a dart was shot from the defendant's location toward the witness' location and hit her daughter, J-Rina, who she had been holding in her arms. Additionally, the witness stated that there were no other persons near the defendant when the dart was shot.
Circumstantial evidence established that the defendant intended to shoot at Becksina Puekea, however he actually shot J-Rina Davis instead. This is the quintessential “bad-aim” situation that would prompt a finding of transferred intent. As the Michigan Appellate Court stated, the fact that the defendant shot the wrong person makes his crime no less heinous. Lovett, 283 N.W.2d at 359, 8 A.L.R.4th at 955. Therefore, it is only necessary to show that the state of mind to do bodily injury existed, not that it be directed at a particular person. Id. Although the defendant did not intend to injure the actual victim, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence showing that he intended to assault Becksina Puekea with a dangerous weapon. This intent to harm Becksina Puekea was transferred to J-Rina Davis when the defendant's poor aim caused him to hit the four-year old daughter of his intended target. As a result, there was sufficient intent to find that that defendant purposely caused bodily injury to the victim with a dangerous weapon. Therefore, this Court finds that the government has met their burden of proof and determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare
Roman, did commit Assault with a Dangerous Weapon against J-Rina Davis, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 407(1).
B. Count II: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Toward Greg Willy
Under the law of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, the state bore the burden to prove that Defendant Roman purposely caused bodily injury to another person with the use of a dangerous weapon. The government argued that Defendant Roman attempted to assault Greg Willy when the defendant took a machete and attempted to hack it at Mr. Willy's neck, which would be a use of the machete in a manner capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. This was established by the government using eyewitness testimony from the victim, Greg Willy, during trial. Therefore, this Court finds that the government has met their burden of proof and determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit Assault with a Dangerous Weapon against Greg Willy, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 407(1).
C. Count III: Unlawful Use of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart
Under Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4 the state bore the burden to prove that the defendant manufactured, produced, used, sold, possessed, acquired or disposed of a slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana. The government argued that Defendant Roman violated this law when he used a slingshot to hit victim J-Rina Davis with a dart. Although the government did not present any direct evidence to prove their point, they presented compelling circumstantial evidence. Before the victim was shot the defendant had been arguing with Witness Becksina Puekea, at which time he threatened her with non-specific bodily harm. Within seconds of his threat a dart was shot from the defendant's location toward the witness’ location and hit her daughter, J-Rina, who she had been holding in her arms. Additionally, the witness stated that there were no other persons near the defendant when the dart was shot. Therefore, this Court finds that the government has met their burden of proof and determines beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant Roman did unlawfully use a slingshot in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4.
D. Count IV: Unlawful Possession of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart
Under Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4, the state bore the burden to prove that the defendant manufactured, produced, used, sold, possessed, acquired or disposed of a slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana. The government argued that Defendant Roman violated this law when he possessed a slingshot on the date of October 16, 2016, at which time Greg Willy saw the defendant with a slingshot in his possession. This account of the defendant holding an slingshot in his hand is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did unlawfully possess a slingshot, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4.
E. Count V: Assault Toward J-Rina Davis
In order to convict the defendant of assault, Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 408(1), the government bore the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mare Roman unlawfully offered or attempted, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harm to another individual. The government argued that the defendant shot a dart in the direction of the victim, J-Rina Davis, and did cause her bodily harm when it punctured three of her fingers. Although the government did not present any direct evidence to prove the charges, they presented circumstantial evidence. Before the victim was shot the defendant had been arguing with Witness Becksina Puekea, at which time he threatened her with non-specific bodily harm. Within seconds of his threat a dart was shot from the defendant's location toward the witness' location and hit her daughter, J-Rina, who she had been holding in her arms. Additionally,
the witness stated that there were no other persons near the defendant when the dart was shot. Therefore, this Court finds that the government sufficiently met their burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit an Assault against J-Rina Davis, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 408(1).
F. Count VI: Assault Toward Greg Willy
In order to convict the defendant of assault, Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 408(1), the government bore the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mare Roman unlawfully offered or attempted, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harm to another individual. The government argued that the defendant assaulted the victim, Greg Willy, when he did use unlawful force to strike the victim in the nose, causing him to bleed. The government relied on victim testimony during trial, at which time Mr. Willy stated that the defendant ran at him with a machete, attempting to hack at his neck, Mr. Willy attempted to knock the machete from the defendant's hands and in the shuffle Defendant Roman punched him in the nose. Therefore, this Court finds that the government sufficiently met their burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit an Assault against Greg Willy, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 408(1).
G. Count VII: Assault and Battery Toward J-Rina Davis
In order to convict the defendant of assault and battery, Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 409(1), the government bore the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mare Roman unlawfully struck, beat, wounded, or did bodily harm to another individual. The government argued that the defendant did commit assault and battery against J-Rina Davis when he unlawfully caused her bodily injury by shooting an illegal slingshot dart toward her direction and puncturing three of her fingers. Although the government did not present any direct evidence to prove the charges, they presented circumstantial evidence. Before the victim was shot the defendant had been arguing with Witness Becksina Puekea, at which time he threatened her with non-specific bodily harm. Within seconds of his threat a dart was shot from the defendant's location toward the witness' location and hit her daughter, J-Rina, who she had been holding in her arms. Additionally, the witness stated that there were no other persons near the defendant when the dart was shot. Therefore, this Court finds that the government sufficiently met their burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit an Assault and Battery against J-Rina Davis, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 409(1).
H. Count VIII: Assault and Battery Toward Greg Willy
In order to convict the defendant of assault and battery, Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 409(1), the government bore the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mare Roman unlawfully struck, beat, wounded, or did bodily harm to another individual. The government argued that the defendant did commit assault against Greg Willy when he when he unlawfully struck the victim in the nose, causing him to bleed. The government relied on victim testimony during trial, at which time Mr. Willy stated that the defendant ran at him with a machete, attempting to hack at his neck, Mr. Willy attempted to knock the machete from the defendant's hands and in the shuffle Defendant Roman punched him in the nose. Therefore, this Court finds that the government sufficiently met their burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit an Assault and Battery against Greg Willy, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 409(1).
This Court, after trial and deliberation, finds the following:
A. Count I of the Information
The government has met its burden of proof that Defendant Roman purposely committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and, therefore, was in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 407(1);
B. Count II of the Information
The government has met its burden of proof and determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 407(1);
C. Count III of the Information
The government has met its burden of proof and determines beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant Roman did unlawfully use a slingshot in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4;
D. Count IV of the Information
The government has met its burden of proof and determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did unlawfully possess a slingshot, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4;
E. Count V of the Information
The government sufficiently met their burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit an Assault against J-Rina Davis, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 408(1);
F. Count VI of the Information
The government sufficiently met its burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit an Assault against Greg Willy, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 408(1);
G. Count VII of the Information
The government sufficiently met their burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit an Assault and Battery against J-Rina Davis, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 409(1);
H. Count VIII of the Information
The government sufficiently met their burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did commit an Assault and Battery against Greg Willy, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 409(1).
Therefore, the defendant Mare Roman is guilty on all the counts in the Information beyond reasonable doubt. Pre-sentencing hearing is hereby set for March 29, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
* * * *