Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands

Republic of the Marshall Islands v Menke [1986] MHSC 12; 1 MILR (Rev) 36 (24 July 1986)

1 MILR (Rev.) 36

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S.Ct. CRIM. NO. 84-01
(High Ct. Crim. No. 1984-007)

REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
Respondent,

-v-

JURIA MENKE,
Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

JULY 24, 1986

BURNETT, C.J.
TENNEKONE, A.J., and KONDO, A.J. (sitting by designation)

SUMMARY:

High Court decision affirmed. The Supreme Court rejected Appellant's two assignments of error. Appellant did not object to the admission of self-incriminating statements at trial, and Appellant did not renew his objection to the prosecution's expert when the trial court suggested to the prosecutor that he proceed with direct examination.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR – Assignment of Errors – Objections: Counsel has a duty to protect his record by timely objection is one such rule.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Discretionary Matters – Findings of fact: Findings of fact of the High Court cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous, P.L. 1983-18.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR – Review – Harmless Error: To warrant appellate intervention, error in admitting or excluding evidence, or in any ruling or order of the court must be so prejudicial to the rights of a party as to be inconsistent with substantial justice, 6 TTC Section 351.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from a jury verdict finding Juria Menke guilty of Murder in the second degree.

Two assignments of error were asserted in appellant's brief and argued on hearing in this Court; neither need long detain us.

Appellant claims error in the Trial Court's having overruled [an] objection to admission of his statements against self interest, first because he was not competent to make them, and then that they were not corroborated.

No question was raised on trial as to appellant's competence at the time his self-incriminating statements were made, nor as to their corroboration. Consequently, nothing is preserved for our review. We have, nevertheless, examined the record; we find nothing to warrant questioning appellant's competence and find ample evidence to corroborate his statements.

Appellant's final assignment of error is in the admission of expert testimony over objection by defense counsel. In this, counsel misstates the facts as to what transpired on trial.

At an early stage in examination of the witness, trial counsel objected on grounds that the prosecution had not laid a proper foundation for the testimony. Counsel was permitted to voir dire, after which he renewed his objection. While not ruling directly on the objection, the trial court suggested that prosecution continue direct examination. The objection was not renewed at any time, either following conclusion of direct examination or extended cross examination, thus no error is preserved for our review.

[1-3] Certain rules of appellate review are so universally followed, and so frequently stated, as to require no supporting citation. That counsel has a duty to protect his record by timely objection is one such rule. Findings of fact of the High Court cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous, P.L. 1983-18, Section 66. And, to warrant appellate intervention, error in admitting or excluding evidence, or in any ruling or order of the court must be so prejudicial to the rights of a party as to be inconsistent with substantial justice, 6 TTC Section 351.

In an exercise of caution, given the serious nature of the offense, we have carefully examined the entire record. We find no error.

We affirm.

Joseph C. Lehman, Assistant Public Defender, for Appellant
Gregory J. Danz, Attorney General, for Respondent

ED'S NOTE: THIS OPINION APPEARS IN THE FILE UNSIGNED.