KOSRAE STATE COURT
FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
EASTERN CAROLINE ISLANDS 96944
Cite as Kosrae v. Mongkeya , Kosrae (1988)
CRIMINAL CASE N0. 25-88
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
After victim parked her vehicle on the right side of the public road at Fwinfukul, Tafunsak, she then walked up to witness's house and saw defendant outside her house cleaning the yard at which time there were some words exchanged and immediately a fight took place.
As parties cursing each others, using profane language, father of Nikeme appeared and seperate the fight and led victim to her vehicle in order for her to leave the premises.
Upon leading the victim to her vehicle, there were still words exchanged, and defendant kept following victim to where victim's vehicle was parked. Witness Sra Weilbacher saw defendant picked up a rock and damaged the left side mirror of the victim's vehicle.
Justus stop the fight and led victim to her vehicle and assisted victim to enter the cabin. Victim resisted and hit her head at the side of the driver's cabin of her vehicle.
Charges of Assault was thereafter filed against father, and Nikeme was charged with Malicious Mischief.
Defendants entered not guilty plea. During the trial Justus argued that he grabs victim while fighting and simply leads victim to her vehicle and advised her to leave. Upon assisting victim to enter the cabin of the vehicle victim kept resisting and kept hitting her head inside the cabin.
The fact that a fighting occured at this particular place on the date specified in the complaint is not disputed.
 Victim, after having her vehicle parked on the side of the road proceeded to witness's house to get some personal belongings. She (victim) saw defendant Nikeme cleaning outside her house.
 Victim and defendant after cursing each others with profane languages got into a fight and was seperated by defendant's father.
[2-3] Defendant Justus after seperating the fights led victim to her vehicle. Defendant Nikeme kept following victim to where the vehicle park and damage the left side mirror of the,victim's vehicle. Sra Weilbacher saw defendant with an object and identified the object that was used to damage the vehicle.
 Defendant's father led victim to her vehicle and assisted victim to get inside the cabin at which time victim refuses and kept hitting her head inside the driver's cabin.  It was approximately 7:00 p.m. and there was still clear to see what exactly takes place as testified by witness.
The facts that Justus grabs victim's arm and led her to the vehicle while victim refuses to enter raise an issue that challenged by defendant.
Whether a grabbing of victim's arm and forcing her inside the driver's cabin can be amounted to assault under KC 13.302. Justus argued that he cannot be charged with assault if there was no intent, or excessive force apply to injure victim.
The elements that needs to satisfy the charges of assault provided in KC 13.302 reads:
assault is offering or attempting, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harm, to another ...category one misdemeanor P.L. 4-123 as amended.
In order for a person to be convicted for the crime of assault the required elements must be prove beyond reasonable doubt. One,can simply look at the facts and can easily determined that mere grabbing of one person's arm without any attempts to do bodily harm, or in the absence of other proofs cannot be cahrged with assault.
Government argued and alleged that defendant Justus, while, in the course of leading victim to her vehicle, assisted victim and threw her inside the cabin and as a direct result, victim hit her head and was injured. There was no physical injury, neither additional facts to convince the Court whether Justus's act can be amounted to assault, under KC 13.302.
As to the charge of Malicious Mischief, the circumstantial evidences, combined with the admissible evidences of the witness and victim's statement was sufficient to justify that accused acted both wilfully and with toward those property of victim which she damaged. As a proximate cause of the defendant's act, and as a direct result of her wilful act, victim sustained injury to her vehicle.
In trial for a crime of Malicious Mischief, wilfulness may be inferred from circumstances just as intent in larceny cases. 1 TTR 327 (1957)
In this case at bar, whether defendant's act of following victim to where the vehicle was parking can be justifiable. The conduct of defendant in following the victim after the altercation was stopped can be considered as intentional to commit other crime and as a proximate cause, victim's property was damaged.
Considering of the evidences of this case, I have found defendant Nikeme's act wilful and unlawful, and found defendant guilty of the offense Malicious Mischief.
DATED: 10-18-88 /s/
Harry H. Skilling