Police v Leiloa [2002] WSSC 42 (15 August 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Informant

AND:

TAUALAI LEILOA aka TAUALAI TUILAEPA,
male of Maagiagi and Laulii
Defendant

Inspector T. Salale for prosecution
Defendant appears in-person

Hearing: 15 August 2002
Judgment: 15 August 2002

JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE COOPER

The defendant in this case, Taualai is charged with the crime of burglary. It is alleged that this burglary was committed on the 4th October 2001.

The charge is one that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

For the prosecution I heard evidence from Leniu James Moore, Palepa Faoagali, Charlie Fuluasou and from the officer-in-charge of the case.

For the defence the defendant gave evidence himself. He was given the opportunity to
call further witnesses but after consideration of the matter, he decided not to do so.

There is no doubt there that there was a burglary at the home of Gina Moore on the 4th October 2001. The sole issue in this case is whether it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was one of the burglars. The main evidence in this regard comes from an accomplice, Charlie Fuluasou.

I remind myself that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. This is because the accomplice may have a reason of his own to give false evidence against the defendant. Therefore the court will look to see whether the accomplice’s evidence is supported by other independent evidence.

In this case the evidence given by Charlie Fuluasou is supported by the evidence of Palepa Faoagali. This is because she saw the defendant with Charlie Fuluasou shortly after the burglary. He was carrying the red-striped bag that had been stolen from the Moore’s house. Charlie Fuluasou’s evidence is also supported by the fact that the stereo stolen from the Moore’s house was found in the defendant’s house. Charlie Fuluasou gave a detailed account of how he and the defendant both planned and carried out the burglary together.

The defendant’s evidence was that he was asked by Charlie Fuluasou to become involved in the burglary but refused to do so. The defendant said that on the morning that the burglary happened he was heading to catch a bus to go to his wife’s family’s village. On the way he said he met Charlie Fuluasou who was carrying bags including the large red-striped bag. The defendant said that after talking to Charlie Fuluasou for a brief moment he became suspicious that Charlie had property stolen from the place that they talked about the night before. But he said that Charlie told him that the property was his own or that of a friend, and he asked the defendant if he would take it to his, the defendant’s, house. The defendant said
that he agreed to do so. The defendant denied that he was involved in anyway in the burglary.

If there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant’s evidence is true then he is not guilty. But if the defendant’s evidence is not true and if I accept the other evidence that I heard for the prosecution then the defendant will be guilty.

I can say now that I do not believe the defendant’s evidence. His account of meeting Charlie Fuluasou on the road is not believable. His story that he took the bag with the stereo back to his house at Charlie’s request is not believable.

I accept the evidence of Charlie Fuluasou that the defendant was equally involved with him in the burglary. His evidence is supported by that of Palepa who saw the two of them together shortly after the burglary. Also by the fact that she saw the defendant in possession of property stolen from the Moore house and also because the stolen stereo was found at his home, where he was staying at the time.

Therefore I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the charge is proved and the defendant will be convicted.

JUSTICE COOPER