Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Bennett, (1995)
| Decision Date | 14 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | 94-0403 |
| Parties | SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, RESPONDENT v. LAH-HUH-BATE-SOOT BENNETT, APPELLANT |
| Court | Suquamish Tribal Court of Appeals |
Before: Mary T. Wynne, Chief Justice; Dennis L. Nelson Justice; Charles R. Hostnik, Justice.
Appeal from jury verdict of guilty on charge of first degree rape. Court of Appeals found: (1) arrest warrant that did not contain recitation of probable cause for issuance was invalid; (2) defendant was not entitled to an expanded jury pool which included jurors of Northwest tribes other than members of the tribe in the jurisdiction in which the alleged rape occurred; (3) evidence of defendant's gang membership admissible on the issue of "forcible compulsion" to show that victim was afraid of defendant; (4) evidence of prior forcible sex between defendant and victim admissible to show that victim was afraid of defendant; (5) trial court's failure to rule on motions not an abuse of discretion; (6) double jeopardy does not attach where commitment order contains language stating that defendant had been found guilty of rape when, in fact, he had not yet been found guilty; (7) standard of review on jury instructions is whether they are correct as a matter of law; jury was properly instructed that it could find Rape in the First Degree in five alternative ways; (8) a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant's striking the victim moments before having sexual intercourse with her without her consent amounted to forcible compulsion; (9) trial court has discretion to consider "house arrest" in determining the period of post-conviction confinement; (10) absent a clear showing that courtroom demonstrations prejudiced the defendant, trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying motion for new trial; (11) evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion by disallowing evidence of victim's juvenile adjudications. We affirm the jury verdict of guilty and remand for a sentencing hearing.
This case involves a charge of first degree rape against Lah-huh-bate-soot Bennett. Mr. Bennett appeals from a jury verdict of guilty to this charge. That charge carries a mandatory sentence of one year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.00.
The parties spent a considerable amount of time and energy on this case. This was a three-day jury trial, which produced a 600-page transcript. In addition, the record consists of partial transcripts of two arraignment dates, and another four inches of pretrial pleadings, motions, orders, and related documents. Appellant produced a brief of 58 pages to address the issues he raises on appeal. The Court does not approach this case lightly.
This appeal raises a number of extremely important issues. Appellant identified fourteen separate assignments of error. Those issues can be distilled as follows:
A. Was the Defendant validly arrested?
B. Is the Defendant entitled to an expanded jury pool, to include jurors of Northwest tribes other than members of the tribe of the jurisdiction in which the alleged criminal act occurred?
C. Is it unconstitutional for the Suquamish Tribal Code to permit a six-person jury to render its decision by a majority, rather than by a unanimous vote?
D. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence and in limiting cross-examination of the victim?
E. Did the trial court commit error by neglecting to rule on certain motions?
F. Was it error for the trial judge to deny a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy?
G. Was the jury properly instructed on the elements of first degree rape?
H. Is the conviction for first degree rape against the weight of the evidence?
I. Was it error for the trial judge to sentence the Defendant to one year in jail without credit for good time and without credit for pretrial home detention?
Lah-huh-bate-soot Bennett (hereinafter "Lah-huh-bate-soot") is an enrolled Puyallup tribal member tried and convicted by a jury of Suquamish tribal members on October 24, 1995, for first degree rape. The victim, Bryna Lawrence, is a Suquamish tribal member.
On August 20, 1993, Bryna Lawrence, then sixteen years of age, attended Suquamish Days. Appellant/Defendant Lah-huh-bate-soot, with whose mother Ms. Lawrence had once resided, also attended Suquamish Days. Ms. Lawrence and Appellant knew each other but had not seen each other for several years. Later that evening, Lawrence, Lah-huh-bate-soot and several of their friends gathered at the home of Lawrence's best friend, Trish Rogers. There, they proceeded to drink, smoke some marijuana, and "part[y] into the night." At some point in the evening, Appellant and Respondent ended up alone in Rogers' bedroom.
Once in the bedroom, Lawrence and Lah-huh-bate-soot argued. Lah-huh-bate-soot struck Lawrence during the argument and, subsequently, engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Lawrence admits that she did not see a weapon in the room, nor did she scream or struggle during intercourse. Lawrence testified at trial, however, that she was afraid of Lah-huh-bate-soot because of his gang affiliation, because she had been raped by him when she was fourteen, and because she knew he had recently served time in prison for another offense.
Several months later, Lawrence reported the incident to Ron Blake, Suquamish Tribal Police Officer, and wrote a nineteen page statement dated March 28, 1994. On March 28, 1994, a bench warrant was issued for Lah-huh-bate-soot. The Washington State Patrol arrested Lah-huh-bate-soot on April 7, 1994, pursuant to the warrant, and transported him to Tribal Court for arraignment.
Lah-huh-bate-soot was charged with first-degree rape under the Suquamish Tribal Code, an offense which carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail, or a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both. During the arraignment, Lah-huh-bate-soot requested that the Tribe provide him counsel at tribal expense. Upon determining that Lah-huh-bate-soot qualified due to his financial circumstances, the trial court appointed a Tribal attorney to represent him. The trial court placed Defendant under $5,000 bond and continued the hearing to a later date.
Lah-huh-bate-soot appeared with his appointed counsel for the continuation of his arraignment on April 12, 1994. At that time, defense counsel moved to dismiss the action for various procedural irregularities, including: (1) failure to file a complaint as required by the Suquamish Tribal Code, (2) a defective arrest warrant, and (3) lack of probable cause.
In response, the prosecutor handwrote a complaint and filed it with the court. The complaint, dated April 12, 1994, charged Lah-huh-bate-soot with first-degree rape of Bryna Lawrence. The prosecutor then proceeded to address defense counsel's motions to dismiss.
At the April 12, 1994 arraignment, Defendant also moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, citing to a commitment order issued by the trial court at the April 7, 1994 arraignment. The commitment order stated that Defendant ". . . having this date been found guilty . . .by committing the offense of rape first degree. . ." was to serve five days in jail. Defense counsel argued that by all appearances, the commitment order indicated not only that Defendant had already been found guilty and sentenced, but that he also had already served his time. The trial court did not rule on this motion. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. This matter proceeded to trial on October 19, 20, 21, and 24, 1994.
Jury selection occurred on October 19, 1994, during which both sides conducted extensive voir dire of the prospective jurors. The six-person jury that was ultimately empaneled consisted exclusively of Suquamish tribal members. Defense counsel moved for an expanded jury pool of members of other Northwest tribes. Counsel alleged that because the jury and the victim were Suquamish tribal members, Defendant, who is not Suquamish, would be denied due process. After reviewing the Suquamish Tribal Code, the trial court denied the motion.
Testimony commenced on October 20, 1994. Three witnesses, including Lawrence herself, testified for the prosecution. Three witnesses testified for the defense. The Defendant did not testify.
During the course of the trial, and over defense counsel's objections, the trial judge allowed a witness to testify about Lah-huh-bate-soot's gang membership. The trial court also allowed testimony regarding an incident in which Defendant had forced Lawrence to have sex with him when she was fourteen. In neither of these instances was the evidence admitted to show Defendant's character.
Also during trial, Defendant moved for a mistrial on the grounds of certain evidence the court was going to admit. The trial court did not rule on Defendant's motion for a mistrial. On October 24, 1994, a unanimous jury found the Defendant guilty of the crime of rape in the first degree. After the jury rendered its verdict, Defendant requested that the jury be polled. Each juror confirmed that the jury verdict was, in fact, the verdict of each individual juror.
On November 29, 1994, the trial court issued a sentencing order. Defendant was sentenced to one year in jail, with no reduction for good behavior. He now appeals to this Court.
To the knowledge of the Court, this is the first rape case to be presented to the Suquamish Tribal Court of Appeals. Since this is a case of first impression, this Court does not have the benefit of prior reported Suquamish cases upon which to rely in helping us resolve the issues presented....
To continue reading
Request your trial