Chuuk v Hebwer [2020] FMCSC 1; 22 FSM R. 542 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2019) (13 May 2020)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
CSSC-CRIMINAL CASE NO. 038-2019

CHUUK STATE,
Plaintiff,

vs.

TOM HEBWER, JOHNNY WALTER,
and NORAIN RANU
Defendants.
___________________________________

PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER

Repeat R. Samuel
Acting Chief Justice

Hearing: May 13, 2020
Decided: May 13, 2020

Memorandum Entered: May 19, 2020

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Sherry Jane Edmond
State Prosecutor
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendants: Bethwell O’Sonis, Esq.
Office of the Public Defender
P.O. Box 754
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Criminal Law and Procedure - Arrest and Custody; Search and Seizure - Probable Cause
Article III of the Chuuk Constitution prohibits the court from issuing a warrant unless there is probable cause, supported by affidavit, specifically describing the person to be seized. Chuuk v. Hebwer, 22 FSM R. 542, 543 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2020).

Criminal Law and Procedure - Arrest and Custody; Search and Seizure - Probable Cause
Chuuk Criminal Procedure Rule 4 only allows an arrest warrant or summons to issue when it appears from the complaint, or from affidavit or affidavit filed with the complaint, that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, and a warrant for the defendant’s arrest will issue to any officer authorized by law to execute it. It further provides that a probable cause finding may be based upon hearsay evidence in whole or in part. Chuuk v. Hebwer, 22 FSM R. 542, 543 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2020).

Criminal Law and Procedure - Dismissal; Search and Seizure - Probable Cause
When the supporting affidavit fails to allege any involvement by the two co-defendants in a conspiracy with the lead defendant, no probable cause exists to pursue the matter against the co-defendants, and, since no other counts are alleged against them, the two co-defendants will be dismissed. Chuuk v. Hebwer, 22 FSM R. 542, 543 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2020).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

REPEAT R. SAMUEL, Acting Chief Justice:

I. INTRODUCTION

Chuuk State charged Defendant Tom Hebwer with one count of Misconduct in Public Office, one count Forgery. The State also charged Defendants Johnny Walter and Norain Ranu with one count of conspiracy each. The affidavit of probable cause had failed to mention any involvement of Johnny Walter or Norain Ranu in an alleged conspiracy for misconduct in public office or forgery by Tom Hebwer. The Defendant moved to dismiss Counts III and IV for failure to have probable cause on April 28, 2020. The State agreed and made no objection. The Court granted the dismissal of Counts III and IV at the hearing on May 13, 2020. This order memorializes the oral ruling.

II. ISSUES

1. 1. Whether the State has provided evidence of probable cause to sustain counts III and IV of the criminal information against Johnny Walter and Norain Ranu.
   

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Article III of the Constitution prohibits the Court from issuing a warrant unless there is probable cause, supported by affidavit, specifically describing the person to be seized. Chk. Const. art. III, § 3. Rule 4 of the Chuuk State Criminal Rules of Procedure only allows an arrest or summons to issue where "it appears from the complaint, or from affidavit or affidavit filed with the complathat there is probable cause to believe that an offense hase has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, a warrant for the arrest of the defendant shall issue to any officer authorized by law to execute it." It further provides that a finding of probable cause may be based upon hearsay evidence in whole or in part.

Essentially, Rule 4 and the Chuuk State Constitution prohibit the court from finding probable cause unless the State presents evidence to sustain a finding of probable cause. Here, the State only provided one supporting affidavit. This affidavit fails to allege any involvement by Johnny Walter or Norain Ranu in a conspiracy with Tom Hebwer. Therefore, no probable cause exists to pursue this matter. The Constitution requires this Court to dismiss Counts III and IV.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that:

1. 1. The State has not provided evidence of probable cause to sustain counts III and IV of the criminal information against Johnny Walter and Norain Ranu.
   

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion: counts III and IV are dismissed. As no other counts exist against Johnny Walter and Norain Ranu in this matter, they are dismissed from this case.

* * * *