1 NICS App. 71, Duenas and Satiacum v. Puyallup Tribe (January 1990)
IN THE PUYALLUP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
PUYALLUP INDIAN RESERVATION
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
David Duenas and Simon Satiacum v. Puyallup Tribe
Nos: 89-1926, 89-1927 (January 31, 1990)
SUMMARY
In an appeal from a factual determination by the trial court, which resulted in a criminal conviction, the Court of Appeals held that a trial court is peculiarly situated to determine facts, as it has the opportunity to observe witnesses and judge their credibility. Here, sufficient evidence was received at trial to support defendants' conviction for fishing in closed waters.
FULL TEXT
|
Charles Satiacum, Jr., spokesperson for Appellants David Duenas and Simon Satiacum. Dennis Nelson, Tribal Prosecutor for Respondent Puyallup Tribe. |
ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT
HOSTNIK, Associate Justice:
This matter came before the Puyallup Court of Appeals on December 28, 1989 for oral argument. Present were Charles Satiacum, Jr., spokesperson for Appellants David Duenas and Simon Satiacum. Mr. Duenas and Mr. Simon Satiacum were also personally present. The Puyallup Tribe was represented by the Tribal Prosecutor, Mr. Dennis Nelson. This matter was argued before Chief Justice Lawrence Numkena, Associate Justice Rose Purser, and Associate Justice Charles R. Hostnik.
I. BACKGROUND
The Appellants in this case were charged with fishing in closed waters. There is no dispute that the area in which Mr. Duenas and Mr. Satiacum were located was closed to fishing. They were both present in a boat, and a fishing net was also present in their boat. However, that net was dry and had not been used.
The real issue before the Court relates to whether the defendants were
1 NICS App. 71, Duenas and Satiacum v. Puyallup Tribe (January 1990) p. 72
engaged in fishing. They were located in close proximity to a net set by Mr. James Blatchford, in a two boat beach seine configuration. The Defendants' boat was located at one end of that beach seine. Mr. Blatchford was in a second boat at the other end of the seine.
The Defendants contend that they were in their boat merely watching Mr. Blatchford's beach seining operation. They contend their end of the beach seine was attached to the shore. The Tribe contends that their boat was tied to one end of Mr. Blatchford's net, and that they were therefore engaged in fishing activity. The essential issue on appeal is whether the Defendants' boat was attached to Mr. Blatchford's net.
II. DECISION
The issue presented to the Appellate Court is a factual issue, not a legal issue. A trial court is peculiarly suited to resolve factual disputes such as is presented in this case-- whether the Defendants' boat was tied to Mr. Blatchford's net. A trial court has an opportunity not only to hear all of the testimony and other evidence, but to also observe the witnesses and determine the credibility of each witness presented. In such a case, an appellate court reviewing the trial judge's actual decision will not overturn that decision unless there is no evidence in the record to support the trial decision.
An appellate court acts in a different capacity when it reviews a trial judge's Conclusions of Law. In such an instance, the facts are undisputed, and it is only the application of the law to those undisputed facts that is at issue. In that situation, the appellate court is in the same position as the trial court to apply the law to those disputed facts. However, the Defendants are not appealing a decision of the trial court's application of law to undisputed facts.
The Appellate Panel in this case has had an opportunity to review the testimony presented before the Trial Judge. That testimony was reviewed to see if there was any evidence presented to support the Judge's decision. Officer Baker testified that although a two boat, beach seining operation was unusual, he did observe the Blatchford net tied to the boat of the Defendants. Based on that testimony, the Trial Judge was justified in concluding that the Defendants were not merely watching Mr. Blatchford, but were in fact a part of that fishing operation.
Although the Appellate Judges in this case may not have reached the same conclusions after hearing the conflicting testimony that was presented to the Trial Judge, there is evidence to support the Trial Judge's decision. Therefore, the Trial Judge's decision will be affirmed.