Puyallup Tribe v. Satiacum, (2001)

• Decision Date: 30 March 2001
• Docket Number: AP 99-165/99-165
• Citation: Puyallup Tribe v. Satiacum (Puyallup Tribal App. Ct. 2001)
• Parties: PUYALLUP TRIBE, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, v. DANIEL SATIACUM, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
• Court: Puyallup Tribal App Court

PUYALLUP TRIBE, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, v. DANIEL SATIACUM, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,

No. AP 99-165/99-165

Puyallup Tribal Court

March 30, 2001

OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT

THIS MATTER came before the Puyallup Court of Appeals on September 19, 2000.In this case, the Puyallup Tribe asks this Court to set aside a jury verdict of not guilty rendered on two charges: Battery/Domestic Violence and disturbing the Peace.The Court has reviewed the trial record and briefs of the parties, heard oral arguments and has researched and deliberated upon the issues raised by the parties and is fully familiar with the record herein.Based upon this review, the Court finds that the verdict should be upheld.

The Tribes argues that the Court of Appeals should reverse the jury verdict, reverse the trial court's denial of the Tribe's motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict ("JNOV") and set this matter for sentencing.The Tribe argues that the verdict should be set aside because:

1.The defendant confessed during the course of his closing arguments.

2.The trial court erred on its JNOV ruling.

3.The trial court did not provide adequate reasons for its ruling against the Tribe on the Tribe's Motion for a JNO.

4.It is against public policy to allow an acquittal to stand after the Defendant has admitted to criminal conduct during the course of a trial.

The Defendant responded that the verdict should stand.It is his position that he did not testify during trial, and therefore there is no evidence or public policy issues which rise to the level of reversible error.

After review of the full trial oral transcript and the written pleadings and evidence introduced at trial, the Court of Appeals concludes the Tribe has failed to meet its burden as appellant.The Tribe has failed to provide the Court with tribal law or statute supporting its position.The briefs and arguments presented by the Tribe are also silent on persuasive federal or state authority.Finally, this Court has conducted an independent examination of tribal and other authorities and is unable to find any authority to support the issuance of a directed guilty verdict in a criminal case.The reason for this lack of authority lies in a criminal defendant's constitutional right a jury trial.

Under accepted rules of federal constitutional interpretation, it is clear that a court may not direct a verdict of guilty in a criminal case, either in whole or in part.To permit this would invade the constitutionally protected right to trial by jury in a criminal case.U.S. v Garaway,425 F.2d 185, 9th Cir. 1970.

In this line of cases, the federal courts are interpreting federal constitutional rights to a trial by jury.When protecting tribal Constitutional rights, this Court will be inclined to apply a strict standard in favor of protecting the tribal Constitutional rights of all persons appearing in the Puyallup Tribal Court.

Pursuant to the Constitution and By Laws of the Puyallup Tribe Article VII, Section 4, Rights of Accused, the right to a trial by jury is absolute for any person subject to imprisonment for more thirty days under an act passed by the Puyallup Tribe:

Any members of the Puyallup Tribe accused of any offence shall have the right to a prompt, open, and public hearing, with due notice of the offence, and shall be permitted to summon witnesses on his own behalf.Trial by jury maybe demanded by any prisoner accused of any offense punishable by more than thirty days imprisonment.Excessive bail shall not be required, and cruel punishment shall not be opposed.

In the case before the Court, the charge of Battery/Domestic Violence is punishable by up to ninety days imprisonment and a...