2 NICS App. 221, Lummi Nation v. Solomon (December 1992)

IN THE LUMMI TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

LUMMI INDIAN RESERVATION

BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON

Lummi Indian Nation v. John Solomon, Jr.

No. 91.6 CRP 1193 (December 28, 1992)

SUMMARY

At trial, Lummi Indian Nation member John Solomon, Jr., argued self-defense in response to the Nation's charge that he had assaulted another tribal member. At the conclusion of a de novo trial, the Lummi Tribal Court of Appeals, Justice John Roe dissenting, affirmed the trial court's verdict of guilty. ''The defendant failed to present testimony that would lead a reasonable person to think that [he] acted in self-defense," concluded the majority. They pointed out that Mr. Solomon had willfully hit the victim, that he had little need to defend himself against the victim, and that, in any event, the amount of force used was excessive.

FULL TEXT

Before:	Chief Justice David L. Harding, Associate Justice Elizabeth Fry and Associate Justice John Roe.
Appearances:	Tribal prosecutor Iris Shue for the Lummi Indian Nation; spokesperson Ron Morris for defendant John Solomon, Jr.

DECISION AND ORDER OF THE APPELLATE PANEL

HARDING, Chief Justice:

THIS MATTER came before the Lummi Tribal Court of Appeals on June 22, 1992. The issues on appeal were heard de novo. The defendant, John Solomon, Jr., was convicted of assault and battery in violation of Section 5.1.02 of the Lummi Code of Offenses and sentenced on November 13, 1991. Mr. Solomon filed a timely Notice of Appeal.

FACTS

Mr. Solomon had been invited into James Smith's house by Mr. Smith's mother. Shortly after Mr. Solomon arrived, the mother went to bed and Mr. Solomon, accompanied by a friend, waited in the living room for Solomon's wife to drive over and give them a ride home.

2 NICS App. 221, Lummi Nation v. Solomon (December 1992) p. 222

Mr. Solomon was intoxicated. While waiting for his ride he began to tease James Smith. Mr. Smith decided to go next door to a neighbor's house to sleep. However, before he could leave the house, an argument started. In the course of the argument, Mr. Solomon attacked Mr. Smith. First he beat him and knocked him off the porch, causing him to hit his head on the driveway. Then he jumped on Mr. Smith, beat him again with both fists, and finally chased him under a car. As a result of the attack, Mr. Smith received permanent injuries.

In his Notice of Appeal Mr. Solomon stated that he had closed his eyes and counted to three before hitting the victim. He also claimed that he was "clearly intimidated" by a knife which Mr. Smith was holding.

DISCUSSION

When he stated that he had closed his eyes and counted to three before striking Mr. Smith, Mr. Solomon in fact admitted that he had violated the law. Section 5.1.02 of the Lummi Code of Offenses states in part:

Any person who shall willfully strike another person or otherwise inflict bodily injury, or who shall, by offering violence cause another to harm himself shall be deemed guilty of assault and battery ...

By claiming in his Notice of Appeal that he "was clearly intimidated by the appearance of a knife in the hand of the victim," Mr. Solomon raised self defense as an issue. However, he failed to convince the court that he in fact defended himself at all. It is clear from Mr. Solomon's testimony that he was easily able to overpower the victim and that the beating exceeded the force necessary for self-defense. Mr. Solomon admitted he knew Mr. Smith had been previously injured (in an unrelated incident) and that he lacked the full use of his hand, as his arm was in a sling. Mr. Solomon also acknowledged that he considered Mr. Smith to be a "wimp" who could not fight.

Mr. Solomon thus failed to present testimony that would lead a reasonable person to think that he acted in self-defense.

Therefore, this court, having reviewed the records and files and having heard the testimony of the parties, finds by majority vote that the defendant is guilty of Assault and Battery in violation of Section 5.1.02 of the Lummi Code of Offenses.

As previously set forth in this court's Judgment Order of June 22, 1992, the defendant is sentenced as follows:

2 NICS App. 221, Lummi Nation v. Solomon (December 1992) p. 223

The conditions of suspension, as also set forth in the Judgment Order of June 22, 1992, are as follows:

ROE, Associate Justice, dissenting:

I dissent on the grounds that Mr. Solomon did not receive a fair hearing on appeal.