People of Territory of Guam v. Rosario

Decision Date12 March 1969
Docket NumberCrim. No. 73-67.
Citation296 F. Supp. 140
PartiesThe PEOPLE OF the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward D. ROSARIO, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.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.

SHOECRAFT, Chief Justice.

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:

1. That the evidence does not support the findings of the Trial Court beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. That the Island Court of Guam was without jurisdiction to try the defendant for violation of Section 273a, Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor.

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:

"Section 273a. Contributing. Any person who commits any acts or omits the performance of any duty, which act or omission causes or tends to cause or encourage a child to become in need of the care and protection of the Juvenile Court, shall be guilty of misdemeanor, may be tried for such offense in the Juvenile Court, and upon conviction may be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

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
5 cases
  • Brown v. Pitchess
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1975
    ...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
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 14, 1985
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 1973
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1971
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT