GEORGE HAWK,

POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS

VOL.2

[2P.S.Ct.R.552]

GEORGE HAWK

vs.

STATE OP POHNPEI,

Appellant

STATE OP POHNPEI,

Appellee

Pohnpei Appeal Case No. 10-86

Appellate Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court

December 22, 1987

The appellant who was convicted of the offense of statutory rape by the Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court appealed to the Appellate Division of the Court, moving the Court to certify issue to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia for determination whether:

" Article XI, Section 6 (b) of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia vest jurisdiction of state criminal prosecutions in the national Supreme Court when the defendant in that prosecution is a citizen of a state other than the prosecuting state?"

That issue was not before the Court, nor was it raised at the trial Court.

The Appellate Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, PER CURIAM, held that the motion was frivolous and was calculated to delay the appeal, and that as the alleged constitutional issue had no bearing on the grounds of appeal before the Court, certification was not proper in the case.

1. Appeal and Error - Motions

Where a motion is frivolous in respect of an appeal before the Court and is calculated to delay the appeal the Court will deny it.

2. Constitutional Law - Certification of Constitutional Questions to the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia

Where the alleged constitutional issue in an appeal has no bearing on the grounds of appeal before the Court, certification of that issue to the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia under the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia is not proper in the case.

[2P.S.Ct.R.553]

CORAM: EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice

CARL KOHLER, Associate Justice

YOSTER CARL, Associate Justice

JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice

PER CURIAM,

The appellant moved that the Appellate Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court certify the issue;

"Does Article XI Section 6 (b) of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia vest jurisdiction of state criminal prosecutions in the national Supreme Court when the defendant in that prosecution is a citizen of a state other than the prosecuting state?"

to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia for determination.

The appellant was convicted in the Trial Division of his Court of the offense of statutory rape and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months, 3 of which the defendant would be incarcerated at the Pohnpei State Jail, provided that he paid an alternative fine of $300.00 within 15 days from the date of the commencement of the sentence.

The appellant lodged an appeal footed on the following grounds:

1. Burden of proof was misplaced.

[2P.S.Ct.R.554]

2. There was insufficient evidence to support convictions of statutory rape.

The issue requested by the appellant here for certification to the FSM Supreme Court is not before us; nor was it raised at the trial level.

The motion, in our opinion, is frivolous in respect of the appeal and is calculated to delay the appeal. Certification is not proper here as the alleged constitutional issue has no bearing on the grounds of appeal before us. MOTION DENIED. Chief Clerk of Court is to schedule hearing on the appeal in regular order.

So Ordered this 22 day of December, 1987.


	POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS VOL.2 [2P.S.Ct.R.552] GEORGE HAWK vs. STATE OP POHNPEI, Appellant v. STATE OP POHNPEI, Appellee Pohnpei Appeal Case No. 10-86 Appellate Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court December 22, 1987 The appellant who was convicted of the offense of statutory rape by the Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court appealed to the Appellate Division of the Court, moving the Court to certify issue to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia for determination whether: " Article XI, Section 6 (b) of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia vest jurisdiction of state criminal prosecutions in the national Supreme Court when the defendant in that prosecution is a citizen of a state other than the prosecuting state?" That issue was not before the Court, nor was it raised at the trial Court. The Appellate Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, PER CURIAM, held that the motion was frivolous and was calculated to delay the appeal, and that as the alleged constitutional issue had no bearing on the grounds of appeal before the Court, certification was not proper in the case. 1. Appeal and Error - Motions Where a motion is frivolous in respect of an appeal before the Court and is calculated to delay the appeal the Court will deny it. 2. Constitutional Law - Certification of Constitutional Questions to the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia Where the alleged constitutional issue in an appeal has no bearing on the grounds of appeal before the Court, certification of that issue to the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia under the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia is not proper in the case. [2P.S.Ct.R.553] CORAM: EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice CARL KOHLER, Associate Justice YOSTER CARL, Associate Justice JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice PER CURIAM, The appellant moved that the Appellate Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court certify the issue; "Does Article XI Section 6 (b) of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia vest jurisdiction of state criminal prosecutions in the national Supreme Court when the defendant in that prosecution is a citizen of a state other than the prosecuting state?" to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia for determination. The appellant was convicted in the Trial Division of his Court of the offense of statutory rape and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months, 3 of which the defendant would be incarcerated at the Pohnpei State Jail, provided that he paid an alternative fine of $300.00 within 15 days from the date of the commencement of the sentence. The appellant lodged an appeal footed on the following grounds: 1. Burden of proof was misplaced. [2P.S.Ct.R.554] 2. There was insufficient evidence to support convictions of statutory rape. The issue requested by the appellant here for certification to the FSM Supreme Court is not before us; nor was it raised at the trial level. The motion, in our opinion, is frivolous in respect of the appeal and is calculated to delay the appeal. Certification is not proper here as the alleged constitutional issue has no bearing on the grounds of appeal before us. MOTION DENIED. Chief Clerk of Court is to schedule hearing on the appeal in regular order. So Ordered this 22 day of December, 1987.