People of Territory of Guam v. Rosario
Decision Date | 12 March 1969 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 73-67. |
Citation | 296 F. Supp. 140 |
Parties | The PEOPLE OF the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward D. ROSARIO, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Guam |
Finton J. Phelan, Jr., Agana, Guam, for defendant-appellant.
John P. Raker, Island Atty., Agana, Guam, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PAUL D. SHRIVER, Judge, District Court of Guam, JOAQUIN C. PEREZ, Judge, Island Court of Guam, ROBERT K. SHOECRAFT, Chief Justice, High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
This is an appeal from the Island Court of Guam, in which Court Edward D. Rosario, hereinafter called the defendant, was convicted on May 15, 1967, of the charge of petty theft, in violation of Section 484 of the Penal Code of Guam, and of the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in violation of Section 273a of the Penal Code of Guam. On the first mentioned charge, defendant was sentenced to a jail term of one year, and on the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, defendant was sentenced to a jail term of two months, to be served concurrently with the first mentioned sentence.
Of several assignments of error, the two which are basic to this appeal are essentially:
Section 273a of the Penal Code of Guam was amended by Public Law 9-8, approved on February 20, 1967, and now reads as follows:
The evidence shows that on March 18, 1967, in the early afternoon the chief witness for the prosecution went to Ipao Beach, accompanied by her husband and three children. While there she heard a vehicle stop not far from where she was sitting and also heard someone call out. Upon turning around she saw a little boy grab her pocketbook and run toward a blue truck. At the trial, the witness stated that she knew the license plate number of the truck, and also identified a photograph of said truck. She testified that the little boy, who appeared to be between ten and twelve years of age, jumped into the truck and that the truck pulled away very quickly. She further testified that the truck was being driven by someone other than the boy who had taken her pocketbook, and that her pocketbook had contained $215.00 in cash and other personal property.
Testimony of the other witnesses was that the defendant, an adult, accompanied by three boys, one of which was twelve years of age and another sixteen years of age, (the age of the third boy does not appear in the transcript of the trial) went in a truck owned by the father of the three boys and being driven by one of the boys, to Ipao Beach. While there, the youngest boy, Anthony, took the subject purse and jumped...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Pitchess
...it does not mean exclusive jurisdiction. (Bors v. Preston (1884) 111 U.S. 252, 4 S.Ct. 407, 28 L.Ed. 419; People of the Territory of Guam v. Rosario (D.Guam 1969) 296 F.Supp. 140, 142.) When intending to confer exclusive, as well as original, jurisdiction on the federal district courts, Con......
-
Lloyd v. Page
...not mean exclusive jurisdiction. See Bors v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252, 4 S.Ct. 407, 409, 28 L.Ed. 419 (1884); People of the Territory of Guam v. Rosario, 296 F.Supp. 140 (D.C.Guam 1969), and Petros v. Bosen, 185 Okl. 351, 91 P.2d 735, 736 The State of Tennessee chose a minority view--that it w......
-
New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Bd. of Regents
...not mean exclusive jurisdiction. See Bors v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252, 4 S.Ct. 407, 409, 28 L.Ed. 419 (1884); People of the Territory of Guam v. Rosario, 296 F.Supp. 140 (D.C.Guam 1969); and Petros v. Bosen, 185 Okl. 351, 91 P.2d 735, 736 (1939). Moreover, section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of ......
-
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 10259
...disputed boundaries and surveys thereof or concerning claims of one county against another.' The court in People of Territory of Guam v. Rosario, 296 F.Supp. 140 (D.C.Guam 1969) in discussing the meaning of 'original' jurisdiction had the following to 'We are of the opinion that the rule to......