Republic of the Marshall Islands v Digno [1984] MHSC 2; 1 MILR (Rev) 18 (6 August 1984)

1 MILR (Rev.) 18

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CRIM. NO. 83-01
(High Ct. Crim No. 1982-008)

REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
Appellee,

-v-

BIRTHOOVEN AMACIO DIGNO,
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

AUGUST 6, 1984

BURNETT, C.J.

SUMMARY:

In this case, the defendant was charged with murder and found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The Supreme Court found that for a murder case the High Court was not constituted as required by law and consequently lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR – Questions Reviewable – Questions of Law: Generally, the Supreme Court will not consider a matter which has not been raised by way of objection in the trial court; however, an appellate court may take up a question of law on its own motion, if there is a basis for it in the record.

2. COURTS – Composition: A trial court not constituted as required by law lacks jurisdiction determine cases before it.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY BURNETT, C.J.

Appellant Digno was initially charged by Information with the offense of Murder in the First Degree. A second amended Information charged, in Count One, Murder in the Second Degree and, in Count Two, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Following trial to the High Court, jury having been waived, he was found, as to the first count, not guilty of Murder, but guilty of the lesser and included offense of Voluntary Manslaughter; as to count two, he was found guilty as charged.

Timely Notice of Appeal was filed, following an extension of time within which to do so, and after certification of the record, Appellant's brief was timely filed. No brief was filed by Appellee, though granted an extension of time for that purpose.

Numerous specifications of error are made. Only one need concern us, that trial court was not constituted according to then-applicable law. I note that this claim of error was neither urged at trial, nor included in the grounds asserted in the Notice of Appeal; it appears for the first time in the appellate brief.

[1] Generally it can be said that the Court will not consider a matter which has not been raised by way of objection in the trial court. The Appellate Division, High Court of the Trust Territory, however, has held that an appellate court may take up a question of law on its own motion if there is a basis for it in the record. Crisostimo v. Trust Territory, 7 TTR 375