Raimes v Trust Territory [1955] TTLawRp 11; 1 TTR 262 (12 April 1955)

TRIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

TRUK DISTRICT

Criminal Case No. 32

RAIMES
Appellant

v

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS
Appellee

April 12, 1955

Appeal from conviction in Truk District Court of drunken and disorderly conduct in violation of T.T.C., Sec. 427. Appellant contends that room in which movie was shown was not "public place" within meaning of statute. The Trial Division of the High Court, Associate Justice James R. Nichols, held that room where number of persons have assembled, although privately owned, may be public place within meaning of criminal statute.

Affirmed.

1. Drunken and Disorderly Conduct-"Public Place"

A public place is any place, even though privately owned or controlled, where persons have assembled, through common usage or by general invitation, express or implied. (T.T.C., Sec. 427)

2. Drunken and Disorderly Conduct-"Public Place"

Any place may be made "public" by temporary assemblage, especially when assemblage is gathered to witness exhibition for hire. (T.T.C., Sec. 427)

3. Drunken and Disorderly Conduct-"Public Place"

Room in which movie is shown and in which people are assembled may be public place within meaning of criminal statute defining drunken and disorderly conduct. (T.T.C., Sec. 427)

Assessor: Interpreter: Counsel for Appellant Counsel for Apellee:

ICHIRO MOSES F. SOUKICHI SMART LAMPSON F. PETER

Before NICHOLS Associate Justice

The parties are agree that the allege offense was committed in a small room in a building known as the Dublon Office. The appellant argue that this room could not be considered a public place at the time of the alleged offense, that the appellee therefore has failed to establish one of the elements of the offense of "Drunken and Disorderly Conduct" and that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the finding and sentence should be set aside.

The appellee argue that the entire building known as the Dublon Office had been rented by the Truk Trading Company for the presentation of a movie, that the small room in which the allege offense occurred, was connected by an opening to the room in which the audience was viewing the movie, and that the projector was being operated from the small room referred to above. He further argues that the audience left the movie as a result of the disturbance caused by the appellee. He therefor contend that as a matter of law the small room was a public place at the time of the allege offense, and that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

The evidence adduced at the trial supports the appellee's contention as to the facts

CONCLUSION O LAW