THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
Cite as FSM v. Sangechik,
4 FSM Intrm. 210 (Chuuk 1990)

[4 FSM Intrm. 210]

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA,
Plaintiff,

vs.

KANTITO SANGECHIK,
Defendant.

FSM CRIM. NO. 1989-1510

ORDER

Before Richard H. Benson
Associate Justice
February 19, 1990

APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:          Steven P. Pixley, Esq.
                                     Office of the Attorney General
                                     Federated States of Micronesia
                                     Post Office Box 490
                                     Palikir, Pohnpei  96941

[4 FSM Intrm. 211]

For the Defendant:     Dan Maloney, Esq.
                                     Office of the Public Defender
                                     Federated States of Micronesia
                                     Post Office Box 754
                                     Weno, Chuuk  96942
 
 *    *    *    *
 
 HEADNOTE
Criminal Law and Procedure - Interrogation and Confession
     A defendant's statement will be suppressed when the defendant has notbeen advised of all the rights set forth in 12 F.S.M.C. 218 (1)-(5), even thoughhe was advised of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel and he waived those rights.  FSM v. Sangechik, 4 FSM Intrm. 210, 211-12 (Chk. 1990).
  
*    *    *    *
 
 COURT'S OPINION
RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice:
     This matter came before the court on the motion of the defendant for an order suppressing any statement that the defendant made to law enforcement officers.

     An evidentiary hearing was held on February 9, 1990.  It is not contested that the defendant was not advised of the rights set forth in 12 F.S.M.C. 218, subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5).

     I find that the defendant was advised of his right to remain silent, and warned that if he answered questions, what he said could be used against him in court.

     The defendant was also advised of his right to a  lawyer, and that if he could not afford a lawyer, the government would appoint a lawyer to represent him.

     The defendant understood these rights and voluntarily waived them, consenting to be questioned without a lawyer.

     I conclude however that the defendant was questioned without being advised of all his rights as required by the statute.  12 F.S.M.C. 218 (6).  The effect of this violation is to render inadmissible the evidence obtained.  12 F.S.M.C. 220. FSM v. Edward, 3 FSM Intrm. 224, 230-32 (Pon. 1987).

     The motion to suppress is accordingly granted.

*    *    *    *