Eram v Trust Territory [1968] TTLawRp 11; 3 TTR 442 (25 March 1968)

3 TTR 442

KACHUICHY ERAM,
Appellant

v.

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS,
Appellee

Criminal Case No. 214
Trial Division of the High Court
Truk District

March 25, 1968

Appeal from conviction of disturbing the peace. The Trial Division of the High Court, E. P. Furber, Temporary Judge, held that based upon the record on appeal, the court could not find that there was any enol' in the admission of the accused's confession.

Affirmed.

1. Appeal and Error - Generally

In an appeal the burden is on the appellant to affirmatively show that there has been some error and that he has been prejudiced thereby. (T.T.C., Sec. 337)

2. Confessions - - Admissibility - Illegal Custody

The mere fact that an accused was in custody of the police when he made his confession does not make it inadmissible; nor does any illegal detention there may have been after the confession was given make it inadmissible.

3. Criminal Law – Complaint - Warrant of Arrest

The fact that an accused is not prepared to post Lail is not a proper reason for delay in bringing him before a court or official authorized to issue a warrant.

4. Criminal Law - Complaint - Warrant of Arrest

Courts and officials authorized to issue warrants have an obligation to give effect to the policy that in the case of offenses punishable by not more than one hundred dollars fine or six months' imprisonment or both, a penal summons shall be issued in place of a warrant of arrest unless there is special reason to believe that the public interest requires arrest. (T.T.C., Sec. 450)

FURBER, Temporary Judge

This is an appeal from a conviction of Disturbing the Peace and turns primarily on the admissibility of the appellant's confession.

The presentation of this appeal has been most disheartening to me. It was argued on both sides by counsel who are among the better educated and more experienced trial assistants in the Trust Territory. Yet both appear to have relied on the court to look behind the record in its frequently stated desire to see that litigants receive substantial justice. Neither had apparently used the diligence that is to be expected in seeing to it that the necessary facts were set forth accurately in the record to support their claims.

Counsel for the appellee had expressly stated in this court that he was satisfied with the appellant's draft report and was ready to have the appeal heard on the basis it. On that assurance the trial judge had adopted the report. Yet at the very start of his argument, counsel for the appellee stated that the report was in error as to one relied on by counsel for the appellant.