3 NICS App. 246, Squaxin Island Tribe v. Johns (April 1993)

IN THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

SQUAXIN ISLAND INDIAN RESERVATION

SHELTON, WASHINGTON

Squaxin Island Indian Tribe v. Johns

No. SQI-CiS-92-09-074 (April 6, 1993)

SUMMARY

Civil Appeal of Trial Court judgment which found Appellant guilty of violating provisions of a Tribal fishing code on grounds that he was denied opportunity to present witnesses and that there was a factual error in final judgment.

Appellate Court ruled that defendant, who appeared pro se, was provided an opportunity to present his case but did not exercise that right. Appellate Court also ruled that while there was factual error in the final judgment, it did not affect overall guilt determination and, therefore, was not reversible error. Final judgment was affirmed but remanded to Trial Court to correct factual error.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Chief Justice Elbridge Coochise, Associate Justice Charles R. Hostnik and Associate Justice John L. Roe.

Appearances:  Del A. Johns, pro se appellant; Ric Kilmer, representing respondent, Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an appeal by the Appellant of the Squaxin Island Final Judgment Order, which found the Defendant in violation of civil shellfishing sections 3.16.040(c) and 3.16.050(f) of the Squaxin Island Fishing Code. Appellant claims he did not have the opportunity to speak and present his witnesses to the trial court and that the Final Judgment Order does not accurately reflect what occurred at trial in that he did not admit to any of the allegations.

ISSUE I. OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE

The first issue presented on appeal is whether Appellant had the opportunity to present his case and call witnesses to testify on his behalf. At the trial, Appellant did not present any

3 NICS App. 246, Squaxin Island Tribe v. Johns (April 1993) p. 247

witnesses and asked only one question of one of Respondent's witnesses during cross-examination.

The Appellant was served on September 3, 1992, with a civil complaint of shellfishing violations occurring July 2, 1992. He was ordered to appear at a pre-trial hearing on October 20, 1992. During this pre-trial hearing, Appellant was advised of his right to subpoena witnesses to testify at the trial. Trial was set for December 15, 1992.

The standard of review on appeal is set forth in Section VII(B) of the Squaxin Island Appellate Court Procedures, which provides:

Any person who claims, in good faith, that the Squaxin Island Tribal Court made a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure which affected the outcome of a case shall have the right to appeal from the final judgment. . . § VII.B.

The Appellant claims he was not afforded the opportunity to explain and present his case by having witnesses testify in court. Arguably this could be pled as a mistake in procedure affecting the outcome of the case.

During the pre-trial hearing, the Appellant was informed of his right to obtain witnesses to testify on his behalf at the trial. The Appellant admitted that between the time of the pre-trial hearing and the trial -- approximately two months -- he made no attempts to locate witnesses, nor did he request the Court Clerk to subpoena witnesses to testify on his behalf.

According to the trial transcript the Appellant was given ample opportunity to cross-examine Respondent's witnesses and present his own testimony. With the exception of one question posed to the law enforcement officer, the Appellant failed to exercise this right.

The Court initially inquired whether Appellant was ready to proceed with the trial and he replied, "Sure." (Transcript at p. 2.) Appellant declined to make any opening statements. (Transcript at p. 3.) Following the testimony of the Tribe's first witness, the Court inquired whether Appellant had any questions for the witness. Appellant replied he did not. (Transcript at p. 7.) After the testimony of the second witness, the Court asked whether Appellant had any questions for her. Again, Appellant stated that he did not. (Transcript at p. 9.)

The third witness to testify for the Tribe was a law enforcement officer. Following his testimony, Appellant stated that he had questions for the witness. (Transcript at p. 12.) However, Appellant asked only one question, after which he stated, "No more questions." (Transcript at p. 12.)

Those three witnesses concluded the Tribe's case. The court then asked Appellant whether he intended to present any testimony. Appellant replied that he did not. When asked by the judge if he wished to testify, he declined. (Transcript at p. 13.)

3 NICS App. 246, Squaxin Island Tribe v. Johns (April 1993) p. 248

Finally, following Respondent's closing statement, the Court asked whether Appellant had anything he wished to say, at which time Appellant gave unsworn testimony and ended with, "That's all I have to say." (Transcript at pp. 13-14.)

Appellant argued that he did not understand legal procedure and was not able to adequately present his case. Based upon the trial transcript, the Appellant was given ample opportunity from the Court to cross-examine witnesses and offer testimony. However, there is nothing in the record which would indicate an error was made in procedure to justify reversal of the trial court's decision.

A trial judge is always placed in a difficult position when one of the parties appearing on a matter before the court is unfamiliar with court proceedings. The Court is always concerned that a fair hearing be conducted, but the Court cannot go so far as to instruct a party how to prepare for and present his or her case. That party bears the responsibility of becoming informed about court procedures so that the party can present the evidence and witnesses he or she feels is important for the Court to hear.

One way to become more informed about court proceedings is to observe a proceeding. Most tribal court proceedings are public proceedings. Anyone is free to come in and observe those proceedings. If someone receives a citation and decides to represent himself, he would be well advised to observe court proceedings prior to the time the matter is scheduled to be heard.

The record in this case clearly shows that the trial court did allow Mr. Johns every opportunity to cross-examine the Tribe's witnesses, and to present any additional testimony or evidence which he desired. The Court asked Mr. Johns if he had any questions of the Tribe's witnesses after each witness testified. In fact, Mr. Johns took advantage of that opportunity and did ask questions of one of the Tribe's witnesses. At the conclusion of the Tribe's case, the Court asked Mr. Johns if he wanted to testify himself. He responded "No."

The only time Mr. Johns introduced any testimony was during the course of his closing argument. Although his closing argument was, in essence, unsworn testimony, the Court allowed Mr. Johns to continue his remarks and did not attempt to prevent Mr. Johns from saying all that he desired. When Mr. Johns finished his final argument, he stated, "That's all I have to say." It is unclear whether the Court considered those remarks as evidence in this case. Even if those remarks were evidence, that testimony would not have altered the results of this case since it is clear upon review that the Tribe did prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

ISSUE II. ACCURACY OF JUDGMENT ORDER

The second issue raised by Mr. Johns on appeal is the accuracy of the Court's Final Judgment Order of December 15, 1992. Mr. Johns contends that he did not admit the allegations of the civil complaint, as is stated in the Order.    

3 NICS App. 246, Squaxin Island Tribe v. Johns (April 1993) p. 249

The Squaxin Island Tribe concedes that the Final Judgment Order is in error. The Tribe argues, and this Court agrees, that this does not amount to a mistake in procedure affecting the outcome of the case. The Court concludes that this can be corrected by remanding the Final Judgment Order back to the Trial Court with instructions to correct the Final Judgment Order to accurately reflect the outcome of the trial.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, there being no mistake in law and procedure affecting the outcome of the trial, that the Trial Court is Affirmed. It is further ordered that this matter is remanded to the Trial Court for the correction of the Final Judgment Order to accurately reflect the outcome of the trial, and for review and revision of the schedule for payment of the mandatory fine assessed.

The Court is aware of the provisions of Section VII(B) of the Squaxin Island Appellate Code that the party who loses the appeal is to pay the costs of appeal. However, in this case, the interests of justice would not be served by assessing costs against the Appellant. Therefore, no costs will be assessed.