THE STATE COURT OF YAP
IN THE
TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as
State of Yap v. Figirmad , (Yap St.
1994)
[page 1]
THE STATE OF YAP
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRUNO FIGIRMAD,
Defendant,
Criminal Case No. 1994-213
RULING ON MOTION
Defendant came before this court on November 03, 1994 and motioned to have Count One in the Information dismissed based on failure to allege that the acts 20 were "unlawful" and "public" under Yap State's Disturbing the Peace statute, 11 Y.S.C. 401. Defendant's inntterpretation is misplaced for both arguments.
Unlawful.
"Unlawful", as given in the statute does not impose an extra prong in thegovernment's allegations as the defendant would have this court believe. To do so would create a serious injustice in the State of Yap. If this were so, the government would have to show that one was not only beaten, but "unlawfully" so before a battery would lie. Likewise, before any number of "Unlawful" acts are had, the list goes on.
[page 2]
Instead, this court rules on the motion that "unlawtul", as given in the statute, means that the defendant's acts were without privilege, justification or excuse. This is a burden for the defendant to allege and prove, not the government.
Public.
Likewise, the defendant's argument that the acts must have been committed in public must fail. The statute says "any acts which annoy or disturb other persons so that they are deprived of their right to peace and quite". Unless this Court is seriously mistaken the word "public", with good reason, does not appear in the language. Taking the defendant's argument to its logical conclusion, rape, arson, murder, drug sales, etc. would not be illegal unless they were committed in "public". This, for obvious reason, is a ridiculous statement. It is also the reason that some statutes omit the word "public" while others include it.
Further, defendant goes on too far in his assertions that the Legislature may not proscribe, and this Court is without power to enforce, acts which occur in the home. Criminal acts and privacy rights are two separate and distinct creatures. Simply because the government cannot most instances search a home without probable cause and a valid warrant does not mean that otherwise criminal acts are not so when committed in the home. If this were the case, by the same analogy before, battery would be legal as long as it were done within the confines of one's own home (or anyone else's, for that matter).
MOTION DENIED.
[page 3]
Dated: Nov. 10, 1994.
/s/
Judge C. Yinug
Filed this 11th day of November 1994.
/s/
Clerk of Court