Chuuk v Roman [2017] FMCSC 1; 21 FSM R. 138 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2017) (13 February 2017)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION

CSSC CRIMINAL CASE NO. 129-2016

CHUUK STATE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
MARE ROMAN, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )

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

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Criminal Law and Procedure Standard of Proof
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Standard of Proof
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).

Evidence

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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Criminal Intent
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Criminal Intent; Criminal Law and Procedure Homicide
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Battery; Criminal Law and Procedure Criminal Intent
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Criminal Intent; Criminal Law and Procedure Standard of Proof
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Criminal Intent; Criminal Law and Procedure Standard of Proof
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Criminal Intent; Criminal Law and Procedure Standard of Proof
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault
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).

Weapons
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery
Soone 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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery; Criminal Law and Procedure Criminal Intent
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery; Weapons
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).

Weapons
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery
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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery

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).

Criminal Law and Procedure Assault and Battery
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).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

CAMILLO NOKET, Chief Justice:
I. INTRODUCTION

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.

II. ISSUE(S) PRESENTED

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.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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, [1982] FMSC 22; 1 FSM Intrm. 209, 217-23 (App. 1982); FSM v. Wainit, [2002] FMSC 14; 10 FSM Intrm. 618, 621 (Chk. 2002); Andohn v. FSM, [1984] FMSC 4; 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, [1997] FMSC 40; 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.

e v. Lovett, 283 N.W.2d 357, 8 A.L.R.4th 952 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979); State v. Lockleacklear, 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, [1980] USCADC 344; 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 weaponk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 407(1).220;Bodily injuryry” includes “physicalsical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.” Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 401(1). 220;dangerous weap 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 ornded to be used, is capablepable of producing death or serious bodily injury.” Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, § 401(2).

UnlawUnlawful Use of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart, Count III

The unlawful use of a slingshot with arrow ot is chargeable under Chk. S.L. No. 09-08-12, § 4. An indil has violated Cted Ched Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4 ey “manufacture, pre, produce, use, sell, possess, acquire or dispose a slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich oian p#8221; Chk. S.L. S.L. No. 09-08-12, § 4. Under those termy ̶“shall bell be guilty of unlawful manufacture or production, use, sale, possession, acquisition or disposition of slingshot, pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana.&#8221>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 sling pachinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana.” Chk. S.L. No. 09-08-12, § 4. Undose terms they ̶“ be guilty of unlawful manu manufacture or production, use, sale, possession, acquisition or disposition of slingshot, pachinko, arrodart nikapich or Indian pana.” Id. Possessioession 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.

An individual commits assault when they “unlawfully offers or attempts, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harm to er. Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, &#6, § 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.” S.L. No. 6-66, § #160;409(1>

IV. FV. FACTS

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.

V. ANALYSIS

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).

CountCount II: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Toward Greg Willy

Under the law of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, the state bore the burdeprove that Defendant Roman purposely caused bodily injury tury 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. CountCount 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,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. Cou: IV: Unlawful Possession of Slingshot with Arrow or Dart

Under Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4, thte boe burden to proveprove that the defendant manufactured, produced, used, sold, possessesessed, acquired or disposed of a slingshochinko, arrow or dart nikapich or Indian pana. The government argued that Defendant Roman oman 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. V: A V: Assault Toward J-Rina Davis

In order to convict the defendant of assault, Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, §&#18(1), the government bore the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mare Roman unln 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).

i>CountCount 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 sonable doubt that Mare Rome Roman unlawfully offered or attempted, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harmnother individual. The government argued that the defendanendant 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. CountCount VII: Assault and Battery Toward J-Rina Davis

In order to convict the defendant of assault and battery, Chk. S.L. No. 6-6667; 409(1), the government bore the burden to prove beve 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).

. CountCount VIII: Assault and Battery Toward Greg Willy

In order to convict the defendant of assault and battery, Chk. S.L. No. 6-66, چ409(1), the government bore the burden to prove beyond a nd 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).

VI. CONCLUONCLUSION

This Court, after trial and deliberation, finds the following:

A. Count I o Information

The government has met its burden of proof that Defendant Roma Roman purposely committed Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and, therefore, was in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 407(1>

B. CountCount II of the Information

The government has met its burden of proof and determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the dant, Mare Roman, did commit Assault with a Dangerous Weaponeapon, in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 407(1);

C. CountCount III of the Information

The government has met its burden of proof and determines beyond a reble doubt that Defendant Roman did unlawfully use a slingshot in violation of Chuuk State Late Law No. 09-08-12, § 4;

D. Count IV o IV of the Information

The government has met its burden of proof and determines beyond a reale doubt that the defendant, Mare Roman, did unlawfully possess a slingshot, in violation oion of Chuuk State Law No. 09-08-12, § 4;

E. Couof 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. CountCount 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. ountCount 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 Batagainst J-Rina Davis, in viin violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 409(1);

i>CountCount VIII of the Information

The government sufficiently met their burden and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mare , did commit an Assault and Battery against Greg Willy, in , in violation of Chuuk State Law No. 6-66, § 409(1).

* * * *