Trust Territory v Singeo [1972] TTLawRp 35; 6 TTR 71 (27 September 1972)

Prosecution for burglary and grand larceny. The Trial Division of the High Court, D. Kelly Turner, Associate Justice, held that where, in hearing on motion to suppress, for failure to give Miranda warning, any confession, statement or evidence obtained as a result of statements, it became known that accused was subject to a suspended thirteen-year sentence for prior convictions of burglary and grand larceny, the court and the attorneys for both sides were derelict in their duties for not bringing the situation to light before trial began, but it would be a needless waste of time to start over again with a hearing on an order to show cause why suspension of sentence should not be revoked where the evidence would be the same as that already before the court on motion to suppress, and whether suspension of sentence should be revoked could properly be determined following hearing on motion to suppress.

Statute providing that subsequent conviction of one on a suspended sentence has effect of revoking suspension unless court otherwise directs means that court has discretion to remand offender to jail to serve all or part of the suspended portion of the sentence, try offender for current offense and impose a sentence for that offense should conviction be had, or hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether any conditions of suspension have been broken and if so, order revocation of the suspension. (11 T.T.C. § 1459)

Under statute providing that a subsequent conviction has effect of revoking suspension of execution of sentence for a prior offense unless the court otherwise directs, a subsequent conviction is not mandatory. (11 T.T.C. § 1459)

A hearing to determine whether suspension of a sentence should be revoked for breach of conditions of suspension is not an adversary or criminal proceeding, but, rather, is in the nature of an administrative hearing intimately involved with rehabilitation.

In prosecution for burglary and grand larceny wherein, upon hearing on motion to suppress, for failure to give Miranda warning, any confession, statement or evidence obtained as a result of statements, it became known that accused was subject to a suspended thirteen-year sentence for prior convictions of burglary and grand larceny, the court and the attorneys for both sides were derelict in their duties for not bringing the situation to light before trial began, but it would be a needless waste of time to start over again with a hearing on an order to show cause why suspension of sentence should not be revoked where the evidence would be the same as that already before the court on motion to suppress, and whether suspension of sentence should be revoked could properly be determined following hearing on motion to suppress.

Confession and seizure, under resulting search warrant, of stolen merchandise, were admissible in hearing on question whether suspension of probationer's prior sentence should be revoked, even if they might have been excluded in a trial on criminal charges for failure to give a Miranda warning.

Hearing on motion to suppress evidence in criminal trial, in which information leading to determination to revoke suspension of prior sentence was obtained, was not a criminal trial.

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

Assessor:	PABLO RINGANG, Presiding Judge of the District Court
Prosecutors:	PHILLIP W. JOHNSON, ESQ., District Attorney, Palau ; and BENJAMIN N. OITERONG, District Prosecutor
Counsel for Accused:	J. LEO MCSHANE, ESQ., Public Defender, Palau ; and
	FRANCISCO ARMALUUK, Public Defender's Representative

Defendant Singeo was charged by Information with the offenses of burglary and grand larceny. He plead not guilty to both charges and trial was commenced in Palau District Criminal Case No. 435. However, before the first government witness was called, the Public Defender moved to suppress any confession or other statement Singeo made to the police and to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of such statements.

An evidentiary hearing was held on this motion to suppress. Testimony was taken for three days. The grounds for the defense motion were that the accused was questioned by the police after his arrest before he was given the warnings as to his rights prescribed by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, which rights and the necessity of informing a suspect of them have been partially codified in 12 T.T.C. 68.

The question turned upon (1) whether or not a promise of "help" or leniency was made by the Chief of Police in exchange for an admission of the crimes, and (2) whether the investigating officers asked questions and obtained answers before the Miranda warnings, contained in a mimeographed notice to accused, were given to Singeo.

The accused requested conference with the Public Defender's Representative upon being advised of his rights and after some delay, counsel appeared. Thereafter, accused was questioned and admitted the burglary and larceny. When called to the stand to testify for the limited purpose of the motion to suppress, the accused again confessed to the two offenses.

When the Chief of Police was on the stand, he mentioned an eight-year suspended sentence confronting the accused. Records in the Clerk of Court's Office were checked and disclosed that Singeo had plead guilty to burglary and grand larceny in this Court May 11, 1970, and had been sentenced to ten years' imprisonment (the maximum) for the burglary with the last eight years suspended on conditions. On the grand larceny charge, he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment (also the maximum) with all suspended on conditions. The two sentences were to run consecutively.

Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

Trust Territory v Singeo [1972] TTLawRp 35; 6 TTR 71 (27 September 1972)