State of Pohnpei vs. Max Ladore

POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS

VOL.2

[2P.S.Ct.R.84]

STATE OF POHNPEI,

Plaintiff

MAX LADORE,

Defendant

Pohnpei Criminal Case No. 127-86

Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court

May 15, 1986

The defendant was charged with the crime of unauthorized use of motor vehicle in violation of the Pohnpei Crimes Act, Section 7-21. The defendant moved the Court for acquittal on the ground that the motor vehicle was then registered in the name of a Cresencio Amor who was not the complainant and that the complaint was defective as it was signed by Pridolino Amor who was not the owner, citing "owner" as defined in State Law No. 2L-132-82.

The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice, finding the defendant guilty, held that the definition of "owner" in the statute was broad and included a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle.

1. Criminal Law - Statute - Purpose and Intent

The purpose of the law under which the defendant is charged is to prohibit the use or operation of a motor vehicle or vessel, even temporarily, without the permission or authorization of the owner, and it intends to protect every owner of a vehicle or vessel against such misuse, and provides criminal sanctions to all those who so misuse it. ( SL. 2L-132-82).

2. Statute - Definition of Owner

"Owner" is a person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or

[2P.S.Ct.R.85]

title to a vehicle (S.L. 2L- 132-82, Section 101).

3. Personal Property - "Title" - Meaning

To have "title to" a property is not restricted to mean that one owns a property, for a party may have "title" to a property, though he is not the absolute owner.

4. Personal Property - Title

If a party has the actual or constructive possession of property, or the right of possession, he has a "title"thereto, though another person may be the owner.

5. Personal Property-Title

An instruction in an action of trespass for taking and carrying away goods, that, in order to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict, he must show a title to the property or some part of it is correct and proper.

6. Real Property - Title

Every right to land is a "title" and if a person has actual or constructive possession of property or right of possession, he has a "title"thereto, although another person may be the owner.

7. Property - "Title" - Meaning

Title is defined as the means whereby a person's right to property is established and draws to it the possession.

8. Automobiles - Evidence of Title or Ownership

Title to or ownership of a motor vehicle may be evidenced by possession of a bill of sale, certificate of title, or certificate of registration, relating to such vehicle although such documents do not ordinarily establish conclusively the ownership of such a vehicle, but are merely prima fade evidence thereof, (7A Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traff'q Sedan 25)

9. Personal Property - Title

Where one of two brothers gives away his right to a motor cycle to the other in exchange for a right to the other's pick-up truck, title is

[2P.S.Ct.R.86]

established in the exchange of vehicles, and possession is in fact accordingly had, and all that remains is the registration to put ownership on record.

10. Statute - "Owner" - Definition

For the purpose of control of motor vehicles in the State of Pohnpei, the Legislature has expanded the definition of "owner" not to mean merely "property in" or "title to" but to "include (s) a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle ...," only excepting a lessee under a lease or car rental. (S. L. 2L-132-82, Section 101 (16) )

11. Criminal Law- Complaint

Even if ownership and title is not established in the person who signs the complaint against the defendant, that person's entitlement to the use and possession having been established some four months prior to the unauthorized taking of the pick-up by the defendant, the complaint is not defective on the basis that it is signed by said person, and that person is a rightful complainant

Counsel for Plaintiff: Herold Henry

Counsel for Defendant: Kletus James

Judah C. Johnny, Associate Justice

Trial was held in this matter before me on May 7, 1986, in Kolonia, State of Pohnpei. The defendant is charged with the crime of unauthorized use of vehicles and vessels, in violation of the Pohnpei Crimes Act, Section 7-21. He submitted a plea of not guilty, and this Court found him guilty on the following ground.

BACKGROUND

The undisputed facts of this case indicate that on or about March 31,1986, the defendant with a companion went to the home

[2P.S.Ct.R.87]

of one Cresencio Amor in Awak Village of U Municipality, State of Pohnpei. An orange pickup was parked on the road in front of the home of Cresencio Amor. The defendant took possession of it, and drove it away with his companion, without the authorization of Cresencio Amor.

The pickup got a flat tire, and was not returned to the home of Cresencio Amor until several days laterwhen it was found on the street, and repossessed by Cresencio Amor. The orange pickup is currently registered in the name of Cresencio Amor.

The story of the pickup indicates that it was bought by Cresencio Amor, now a police officer. Cresencio Amor has a younger brother who is Pridolino Amor, the complaining witness, who works as a seaman on Ms Micro Glory. Pridolino Amor owned a motorcycle. Some four months prior to the taking of the vehicle by the defendant, the Amor brothers mutually agreed to exchange ownership of their vehicles. The older Amor gave his orange pickup to the younger Amor, and in exchange the younger Amor gave his motorcycle to the older Amor. Neither of them had formally registered his bartered vehicle in his name, although each had relinquished claim to the former property and claimed ownership of the new property.

[2P.S.Ct.R.88]

The defendant obtained no prior knowledge or authorization from either brother for the use of the orange pickup.

The defendant moved for acquittal based on the fact that the orange pickup is currently registered in the name of Cresencio Amor, who was not the complainant, and that the complaint is defective on the basis that it was signed by Pridolino Amorwho was not the owner of the orange pickup, citing "owner" as defined by State Law No. 2L-132-82.

OPINION

The facts are uncontroverted to the effect that the defendant did take for the purpose of temporarily using and operating the orange pickup without the permission or proper authorization of either Cresencio or Pridolino. The fundamental question here is therefore, whether the complaint sheet is defective by virtue of its having been signed by Pridolino, who is not the registered owner, but not Cresencio, the registered owner. In other words, given the circumstances of the mutual barter of the motor vehicles between the brothers, may one legally complain for an unauthorized use as in the case at bar?

[1-7] The purpose of the law under which the defendant is charged is clear to prohibit the use or operation of a motor vehicle

[2P.S.Ct.R.89]

or vessel, even temporarily, without the permission or authorization of the owner. It intends to protect every owner of vehicles or vessels against such misuse, and it provides criminal sanctions to all those who so misuse. Who is an "owner" that the law intends to protect? The defendant properly cites the Pohnpei State law defining "owner" of motor vehicles. But he is wrong in defining that statute. Let us examine the statute in the light of the defendant's allegations.

"(16) "owner" a person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a vehicle ...S.L. No. 2L-132-82 Section 101, Definition.

Here one must have property in the vehicle. That is, he owns the vehicle already. He also must have "title to" the vehicle. To have "title to" a property is not restricted to mean that one owns a property. A party may have "title" to a property, though he is not the absolute owner. If he has the actual or constructive possession of property, or the right of possession, he has a "title" thereto, though another person may be the owner. Therefore, an instruction in an action of trespass fortaking and carrying away goods, that, in order to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict he must show a title to the property or some part of it in a Massachussets case was found to be correct and proper. See Roberts v Wentworth 59 Mass. (5 Cush) 192,

[2P.S.Ct.R.90]

193; Words and Phrases "Title - to Property". Volume 41A, Page 385. Also on page 390, supra, every right to land is a "title" and if a person has actual or constructive possession of property or right of possession, he has a "title" thereto, although another person may be the ownerCited in Shingteton v. State, 133 S.E. 2d 183, 189, 260 N.C. 451. In Schrolderv Woody, 109 P 2d 597, 599, "title" is again defined as the means whereby a person's right to property is established and draws to it the possession.

[8]Title to or ownership of, a motor vehicle may be evidenced by possession of a bill of sale, certificate of title, or certificate of registration, relating to such vehicle, although such documents do not ordinarily establish conclusively the ownership of such a vehicle, but are merely prima facie evidence thereof. See Woodard v. St Louis, 418 F 2d. 1305; 7A Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, Section 25.

[9] In the case at bar, therefore, Pridolino has given away his right to the motorcycle in exchange for a right to the pick-up truck, and Cresencio in turn has given away his right to the pick-up in exchange for his right to the motorcycle. Title has been established, in the exchanged vehicles and possession has in fact been

[2P.S.Ct.R.91]

accordingly had. All that remains is the registration to put ownership on record.

[10] For the purpose of control of motor vehicles in the State of Pohnpei, the Legislature has expanded the definition of "owner" not to mean merely "property in" or "title to" as discussed above. They have made "owner" much broader in definition to "include(s) a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle...", only excepting a lessee under a lease or car rental. SL 2L-132-82, Section 101 (16) last sentence. Thus, even if ownership and title has not been established in Pridolino, entitlement o the use and possession had been established some four months prior to the unauthorized taking of the pick-up by the defendant. Accordingly, I find Pridolino a rightful complainant, and in fact told the allegations of the defendant frivolous. The defendant is proved, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty as charged, and the motion for acquittal is denied.

Sentencing is sit for May 19, 1986, at 1:30 pm.

It is so Ordered.


	POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS VOL.2 [2P.S.Ct.R.84] STATE OF POHNPEI, Plaintiff v. MAX LADORE, Defendant Pohnpei Criminal Case No. 127-86 Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court May 15, 1986 The defendant was charged with the crime of unauthorized use of motor vehicle in violation of the Pohnpei Crimes Act, Section 7-21. The defendant moved the Court for acquittal on the ground that the motor vehicle was then registered in the name of a Cresencio Amor who was not the complainant and that the complaint was defective as it was signed by Pridolino Amor who was not the owner, citing "owner" as defined in State Law No. 2L-132-82. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice, finding the defendant guilty, held that the definition of "owner" in the statute was broad and included a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle. 1. Criminal Law - Statute - Purpose and Intent The purpose of the law under which the defendant is charged is to prohibit the use or operation of a motor vehicle or vessel, even temporarily, without the permission or authorization of the owner, and it intends to protect every owner of a vehicle or vessel against such misuse, and provides criminal sanctions to all those who so misuse it. ( SL. 2L-132-82). 2. Statute - Definition of Owner "Owner" is a person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or [2P.S.Ct.R.85] title to a vehicle (S.L. 2L- 132-82, Section 101). 3. Personal Property - "Title" - Meaning To have "title to" a property is not restricted to mean that one owns a property, for a party may have "title" to a property, though he is not the absolute owner. 4. Personal Property - Title If a party has the actual or constructive possession of property, or the right of possession, he has a "title"thereto, though another person may be the owner. 5. Personal Property-Title An instruction in an action of trespass for taking and carrying away goods, that, in order to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict, he must show a title to the property or some part of it is correct and proper. 6. Real Property - Title Every right to land is a "title" and if a person has actual or constructive possession of property or right of possession, he has a "title"thereto, although another person may be the owner. 7. Property - "Title" - Meaning Title is defined as the means whereby a person's right to property is established and draws to it the possession. 8. Automobiles - Evidence of Title or Ownership Title to or ownership of a motor vehicle may be evidenced by possession of a bill of sale, certificate of title, or certificate of registration, relating to such vehicle although such documents do not ordinarily establish conclusively the ownership of such a vehicle, but are merely prima fade evidence thereof, (7A Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traff'q Sedan 25) 9. Personal Property - Title Where one of two brothers gives away his right to a motor cycle to the other in exchange for a right to the other's pick-up truck, title is [2P.S.Ct.R.86] established in the exchange of vehicles, and possession is in fact accordingly had, and all that remains is the registration to put ownership on record. 10. Statute - "Owner" - Definition For the purpose of control of motor vehicles in the State of Pohnpei, the Legislature has expanded the definition of "owner" not to mean merely "property in" or "title to" but to "include (s) a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle ...," only excepting a lessee under a lease or car rental. (S. L. 2L-132-82, Section 101 (16) ) 11. Criminal Law- Complaint Even if ownership and title is not established in the person who signs the complaint against the defendant, that person's entitlement to the use and possession having been established some four months prior to the unauthorized taking of the pick-up by the defendant, the complaint is not defective on the basis that it is signed by said person, and that person is a rightful complainant Counsel for Plaintiff: Herold Henry Counsel for Defendant: Kletus James Judah C. Johnny, Associate Justice Trial was held in this matter before me on May 7, 1986, in Kolonia, State of Pohnpei. The defendant is charged with the crime of unauthorized use of vehicles and vessels, in violation of the Pohnpei Crimes Act, Section 7-21. He submitted a plea of not guilty, and this Court found him guilty on the following ground. BACKGROUND The undisputed facts of this case indicate that on or about March 31,1986, the defendant with a companion went to the home [2P.S.Ct.R.87] of one Cresencio Amor in Awak Village of U Municipality, State of Pohnpei. An orange pickup was parked on the road in front of the home of Cresencio Amor. The defendant took possession of it, and drove it away with his companion, without the authorization of Cresencio Amor. The pickup got a flat tire, and was not returned to the home of Cresencio Amor until several days laterwhen it was found on the street, and repossessed by Cresencio Amor. The orange pickup is currently registered in the name of Cresencio Amor. The story of the pickup indicates that it was bought by Cresencio Amor, now a police officer. Cresencio Amor has a younger brother who is Pridolino Amor, the complaining witness, who works as a seaman on Ms Micro Glory. Pridolino Amor owned a motorcycle. Some four months prior to the taking of the vehicle by the defendant, the Amor brothers mutually agreed to exchange ownership of their vehicles. The older Amor gave his orange pickup to the younger Amor, and in exchange the younger Amor gave his motorcycle to the older Amor. Neither of them had formally registered his bartered vehicle in his name, although each had relinquished claim to the former property and claimed ownership of the new property. [2P.S.Ct.R.88] The defendant obtained no prior knowledge or authorization from either brother for the use of the orange pickup. The defendant moved for acquittal based on the fact that the orange pickup is currently registered in the name of Cresencio Amor, who was not the complainant, and that the complaint is defective on the basis that it was signed by Pridolino Amorwho was not the owner of the orange pickup, citing "owner" as defined by State Law No. 2L-132-82. OPINION The facts are uncontroverted to the effect that the defendant did take for the purpose of temporarily using and operating the orange pickup without the permission or proper authorization of either Cresencio or Pridolino. The fundamental question here is therefore, whether the complaint sheet is defective by virtue of its having been signed by Pridolino, who is not the registered owner, but not Cresencio, the registered owner. In other words, given the circumstances of the mutual barter of the motor vehicles between the brothers, may one legally complain for an unauthorized use as in the case at bar? [1-7] The purpose of the law under which the defendant is charged is clear to prohibit the use or operation of a motor vehicle [2P.S.Ct.R.89] or vessel, even temporarily, without the permission or authorization of the owner. It intends to protect every owner of vehicles or vessels against such misuse, and it provides criminal sanctions to all those who so misuse. Who is an "owner" that the law intends to protect? The defendant properly cites the Pohnpei State law defining "owner" of motor vehicles. But he is wrong in defining that statute. Let us examine the statute in the light of the defendant's allegations. "(16) "owner" a person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a vehicle ...S.L. No. 2L-132-82 Section 101, Definition. Here one must have property in the vehicle. That is, he owns the vehicle already. He also must have "title to" the vehicle. To have "title to" a property is not restricted to mean that one owns a property. A party may have "title" to a property, though he is not the absolute owner. If he has the actual or constructive possession of property, or the right of possession, he has a "title" thereto, though another person may be the owner. Therefore, an instruction in an action of trespass fortaking and carrying away goods, that, in order to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict he must show a title to the property or some part of it in a Massachussets case was found to be correct and proper. See Roberts v Wentworth 59 Mass. (5 Cush) 192, [2P.S.Ct.R.90] 193; Words and Phrases "Title - to Property". Volume 41A, Page 385. Also on page 390, supra, every right to land is a "title" and if a person has actual or constructive possession of property or right of possession, he has a "title" thereto, although another person may be the ownerCited in Shingteton v. State, 133 S.E. 2d 183, 189, 260 N.C. 451. In Schrolderv Woody, 109 P 2d 597, 599, "title" is again defined as the means whereby a person's right to property is established and draws to it the possession. [8]Title to or ownership of, a motor vehicle may be evidenced by possession of a bill of sale, certificate of title, or certificate of registration, relating to such vehicle, although such documents do not ordinarily establish conclusively the ownership of such a vehicle, but are merely prima facie evidence thereof. See Woodard v. St Louis, 418 F 2d. 1305; 7A Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, Section 25. [9] In the case at bar, therefore, Pridolino has given away his right to the motorcycle in exchange for a right to the pick-up truck, and Cresencio in turn has given away his right to the pick-up in exchange for his right to the motorcycle. Title has been established, in the exchanged vehicles and possession has in fact been [2P.S.Ct.R.91] accordingly had. All that remains is the registration to put ownership on record. [10] For the purpose of control of motor vehicles in the State of Pohnpei, the Legislature has expanded the definition of "owner" not to mean merely "property in" or "title to" as discussed above. They have made "owner" much broader in definition to "include(s) a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle...", only excepting a lessee under a lease or car rental. SL 2L-132-82, Section 101 (16) last sentence. Thus, even if ownership and title has not been established in Pridolino, entitlement o the use and possession had been established some four months prior to the unauthorized taking of the pick-up by the defendant. Accordingly, I find Pridolino a rightful complainant, and in fact told the allegations of the defendant frivolous. The defendant is proved, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty as charged, and the motion for acquittal is denied. Sentencing is sit for May 19, 1986, at 1:30 pm. It is so Ordered.