Source: http://fsmlaw.org/kosrae/decisions/sepegordon.htm
Timestamp: 2017-05-26 21:10:49
Document Index: 419198758

Matched Legal Cases: ['§625', '§206', '§206', '§10', '§7', '§15', '§10']

KSA STATE v. SEPE GORDON, ATINA WAGUK KOSRAE STATE COURT EASTERN CAROLINE ISLANDS 96944 FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
Cite as Kosrae v. Gordon,Waguk (1988)
SEPE GORDON
ATINA WAGUK
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 106-88
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
DISMISSAL FOR CO-DEFENDANT ATINA WAKUK
Both defendants appeared and tried in the State Court on October 18, 1988. Defendant Sepe Gordon pled not guilty on the offense charged assault and battery; co-defendant Atina Waguk was ordered acquitted after hearing considered the facts, testimonies in this matter.
The findings of the Court based upon the following facts. Defendant and plaintiff met on July 26 beside Mr. Elsworth's resident and.after having an argument an altercation took place.
Victim was inside a vehicle when defendant tried to stop the vehicle. Defendant requested to talk to victim but was refused. Victim advises defendant to leave but instead, she (defendant) reaches out and grabs victim's hair, dragged her out from the vehicle's cabin and again threw victim down on the ground.
After defendant grabs victim's hair, victim spat on
defendant's chest. It was disputed as to who was the first agressor; whether defendant grabs victim's hair first or victim spits on defendant first.
Witness Fred otniel was there during the whole scene and seperated them. Co-defendant Atina Waguk was at her house heard them and ran toward the place and grabs victim's arm in order to assist in seperating them. Mr. Otniel was at the scene and saw the time defendant reaches out and pull victim out of her vehicle. KC 13.303
The statute under which defendant Sepe was charged requires the 'following elements to be proven: (1) beating, striking, wounding, or do bodily harm to the victim. The fact that defendant grabs victims hair is not disputed. Whether defendant's act is-justifiable under the law is a matter for the trial judge to decide. Defendant's contention was that she can not be charged with the crime of assault and battery since victim was the first agressor.
If the defendant's contention that the victim was the agressor in the altercation is true, a finding that she was provoke and acting in self-defense could well have been justified.
However, the authories are in accord that when one is acting in self-defense, he may only extend such force as he has reasonable grounds for believing necessary for protecting himself from injury. One may not use any means of unnecessary force if he reasonably believes that his life is not in danger. In
determining whether the particular means used in this case is justifiable, it is for the trial judge to consider. Judgment
I found that the force and the manner used by defendant is not at all justifiable and therefore found defendant guilty under the crime of assault and battery. Defendant Atina is ordered acquitted from conspiracy to commit assault and battery.
So order this 8th day of October, 1988.
/s/ Harry H. Skilling
Entered this 8th day of November, 1988.
/s/ Clerk of Court, Kosrae