FSM 4 Intrm. 210-211

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Cite as FSM v. Sangechik,

4 FSM Intrm. 210 (Chuuk 1990)

[4 FSM Intrm. 210]

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KANTITO SANGECHIK,

Defendant.

FSM CRIM. NO. 1989-1510

ORDER

Before Richard H. Benson

Associate Justice

February 19, 1990

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Steven P. Pixley, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General

Federated States of Micronesia

Post Office Box 490

Palikir, Pohnpei 96941

[4 FSM Intrm. 211]

For the Defendant: Dan Maloney, Esq.

Office of the Public Defender

Federated States of Micronesia

Post Office Box 754

Weno, Chuuk 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Criminal Law and Procedure - Interrogation and Confession

A defendant's statement will be suppressed when the defendant has notbeen advised of all the rights set forth in 12 F.S.M.C. 218 (1)-(5), even thoughhe was advised of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel and he waived those rights. FSM v. Sangechik, 4 FSM Intrm. 210, 211-12 (Chk. 1990).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice:

This matter came before the court on the motion of the defendant for an order suppressing any statement that the defendant made to law enforcement officers.

An evidentiary hearing was held on February 9, 1990. It is not contested that the defendant was not advised of the rights set forth in 12 F.S.M.C. 218, subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5).

I find that the defendant was advised of his right to remain silent, and warned that if he answered questions, what he said could be used against him in court.

The defendant was also advised of his right to a lawyer, and that if he could not afford a lawyer, the government would appoint a lawyer to represent him.

The defendant understood these rights and voluntarily waived them, consenting to be questioned without a lawyer.

I conclude however that the defendant was questioned without being advised of all his rights as required by the statute. 12 F.S.M.C. 218 (6). The effect of this violation is to render inadmissible the evidence obtained. 12 F.S.M.C. 220. FSM v. Edward, 3 FSM Intrm. 224, 230-32 (Pon. 1987).

The motion to suppress is accordingly granted.

* * * *


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA Cite as FSM v. Sangechik, 4 FSM Intrm. 210 (Chuuk 1990) [4 FSM Intrm. 210] FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA, Plaintiff, vs. KANTITO SANGECHIK, Defendant. FSM CRIM. NO. 1989-1510 ORDER Before Richard H. Benson Associate Justice February 19, 1990 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Steven P. Pixley, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Federated States of Micronesia Post Office Box 490 Palikir, Pohnpei 96941 [4 FSM Intrm. 211] For the Defendant: Dan Maloney, Esq. Office of the Public Defender Federated States of Micronesia Post Office Box 754 Weno, Chuuk 96942 * * * * HEADNOTE Criminal Law and Procedure - Interrogation and Confession A defendant's statement will be suppressed when the defendant has notbeen advised of all the rights set forth in 12 F.S.M.C. 218 (1)-(5), even thoughhe was advised of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel and he waived those rights. FSM v. Sangechik, 4 FSM Intrm. 210, 211-12 (Chk. 1990). * * * * COURT'S OPINION RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice: This matter came before the court on the motion of the defendant for an order suppressing any statement that the defendant made to law enforcement officers. An evidentiary hearing was held on February 9, 1990. It is not contested that the defendant was not advised of the rights set forth in 12 F.S.M.C. 218, subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). I find that the defendant was advised of his right to remain silent, and warned that if he answered questions, what he said could be used against him in court. The defendant was also advised of his right to a lawyer, and that if he could not afford a lawyer, the government would appoint a lawyer to represent him. The defendant understood these rights and voluntarily waived them, consenting to be questioned without a lawyer. I conclude however that the defendant was questioned without being advised of all his rights as required by the statute. 12 F.S.M.C. 218 (6). The effect of this violation is to render inadmissible the evidence obtained. 12 F.S.M.C. 220. FSM v. Edward, 3 FSM Intrm. 224, 230-32 (Pon. 1987). The motion to suppress is accordingly granted. * * * *