Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Tasio v Trust Territory [1967] TTLawRp 9; 3 TTR 262 (4 April 1967)

3 TTR 262

TASIO,
Appellant

v.

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS,
Appellee

Criminal Case No. 204

NUSIO,
Appellant

v.

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS,
Appellee

Criminal Case No. 205
Trial Division of the High Court
Truk District

April 4, 1967

Two appeals considered together and involving same question of law. Appellants were convicted in Truk District Court of trespass in violation of T.T.C., Sec. 401, in connection with taking coconuts from government land. Appellants contend that they had rights in land from which coconuts were taken. The Trial Division of the High Court, Chief Justice E. P. Furber, held that where person accused of trespass claims to have acted in lawful exercise of rights, burden is on government to show beyond reasonable doubt that interference was unlawful. The Court also held that criminal courts should not be used to try land disputes.

Reversed and remanded.

1. Trespass - Intent

Where person who is accused of trespass and who claims right to land has previously lost civil dispute over that land, this has important bearing on question of his good faith in claiming right to land. (T.T.C., Sec. 401)

2. Criminal Law – Appeals – Draft Report

In appeal from criminal conviction, evidence which appellee wishes to have considered should be adequately set forth in District Court reports. (Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 15b(3))

3. Criminal Law - Appeals - Draft Report

In appeal from criminal conviction, report from District Court to appellate court should include statement of all rulings and substance of all evidence needed for full understanding of questions raised by appeal. (Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 15b(3))

4. Criminal Law – Appeals - Draft Report

Draft reports to appellate court should include matters tending to support grounds of appeal or matters tending to show grounds are not sound. (Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 15b (3))

5. Criminal Law - Generally

Civil trespass is distinct and separate from offense of criminal trespass. (T.T.C., Sec. 401)

6. Criminal Law - Generally

Criminal statutes should not be used to try disputed rights in land or as substitute for other adequate civil remedies for trespass.

7. Criminal Law – Statutes - Construction

Penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly against government and liberally in favor of accused.

8. Criminal Law - Generally

Crime of trespass is intended to punish interferences with property that are clearly without right or unlawful, and is not to be used as summary method of trying ownership of land in lower courts. (T.T.C., Sec. 400

9. Courts – High Court

Adjudication of land disputes is within exclusive original jurisdiction of the Trial Division of the High Court. (T.T.C., Sees. 123, 138, 149)

10. Trespass - Intent

Where person accused of trespass claims to have acted in lawful exercise of his rights, burden is on government to show beyond reasonable doubt that interference with property was unlawful, and where evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt as to validity of accused's claim of right, he should be acquitted of criminal charge. (T.T.C., Sec. 401)

11. Trespass - Intent

Claim of right made in good faith, even though erroneous, is good defense to charge of criminal trespass. (T.T.C., Sec. 401)

FURBER, Chief Justice

These two appeals from separate decisions of the Truk District Court have been submitted on one set of briefs to be considered together since they involve the same question of law. The appeal by Tasio in Criminal Case No. 204 is from decision of the Truk District Court in its Criminal Case No. 2313, that of Nusio in Criminal Case No. 205 is from decision of the Truk District in its Criminal Case 2314.

OPINION

In each case the appellant was found guilty of trespass for taking coconuts or "making copra" from a tree or trees located in the same area claimed by the complainant on behalf of the Government to be a part of the land known as Fanmeikoch, but which the appellants contend is a part of the adjoining piece of land known as Nefin owned by a group of which both appellants are members.

The appellee in its brief claims that the trees in question were not near the boundary line of Fanmeikoch and Nefin but extended from about fifty (50) feet on the Fanmeikoch side of the Japanese road used as a boundary line between the two lands to almost the middle of the land Fanmeikoch. If this was established by evidence, it would have an important bearing on the case, but there is nothing in the District Court's report in either case to show that the Japanese road was used as a boundary line.

[1] The appellee has also included under "POINTS OF AUTHORITIES" in its brief, reference to information developed at the pre-trial conference held by this court in Toris v. Nusio, 3 TTR 163, and states in another part of its brief that it denies the appellants' statements that they had been on the land Fanmeikoch for a long time. At still another point, the appellee claims that the appellants overlooked the fact that in Civil Action No. 213, the boundaries of Fanmeikoch were at issue, and points out that one may easily imply that each appellant's act of entering upon the land Fanmeikoch was an intrusion without a bona fide claim of title. Apparently, the appellee wishes the court to infer that the appellants tried to raise issues in the present cases which had already been decided against them by this court in Civil Action No. 213. If this were true, it would clearly have an important bearing on the question of their good faith. Again, however, there is nothing in the District Court's report in either case to show that the judgment in Civil Action No. 213 was considered in any way in the present cases or that the appellants made any statements in these cases to the effect that they had been on the land Fanmeikoch for a long time or were claiming rights in' it. Their claim as shown by the report in each case and by their brief is that the trees in question were not on Fanmeikoch, but were on their adjoining land Nefin.