Republic of the Marshall Islands v Langley [1986] MHSC 11; 1 MILR (Rev) 45 (22 July 1986)

1 MILR (Rev.) 45

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CRIM. No. 85-01

(High Ct. Crim. No. 1985-023)

REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
Appellee,

-v-

TEEN LANGLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

JULY 22, 1986

BURNETT, C.J.
TENNEKONE, A.J., and KONDO, A.J. (sitting by designation)

SUMMARY:

The Supreme Court affirmed jury findings of guilty for attempted murder in the second degree, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and rape. In affirming the jury's findings, the Supreme Court repeated the often stated rules (i) an appellate court will not set aside findings of a trial court unless they are clearly erroneous and (ii) an appellate court will not re-weigh evidence. The Supreme Court also ruled that where there is overwhelming evidence to support the verdict rendered, the High Court's failure to include in the jury instructions a lesser included offense is not reversible error and that where the High Court did not impose the maximum sentences authorized by law nor make the sentences imposed to run consecutively, the High Court's failure to grant the defendant credit for pre-sentence detention, in the absence of a statute requiring such a credit, was not error.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Findings of fact: An appellate court will not set aside findings of fact of a trial court unless they are "clearly erroneous."

2. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Questions of Fact: An appellate court does not weigh the evidence.

3. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Jury Instructions – Lesser Included Offense: Where there is overwhelming evidence to support the verdicts rendered, the High Court's failure to include in the jury instructions a lesser included offense is not reversible error.

4. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Sentencing: Where the trial court did not impose the maximum sentences authorized by law nor make the sentences imposed to run consecutively, the trial court's failure to grant the defendant credit for pre-sentence detention, in the absence of a statute requiring such a credit, was not error.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY BURNETT, C.J.

Teen Langley was charged in a three-count information with the offenses of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree (Count One) 11 TTC Section 4 (2) (b) and Section 752, Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon (Count Two), 11 TTC Section 204, and Rape (Count Three), 11 TTC Section 1302. Count Three was severed for purposes of trial; he brought this appeal from jury verdicts finding him guilty on all three counts.