4 NICS App. 84, MIC v. WILLIAMS (July 1996)

IN THE METLAKATLA TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

    METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY

    METLAKATLA, ALASKA

    Metlakatla Indian Community, Respondent

    v.

    Gloria J. Williams, Appellant

    No. 95-05 (July 17, 1996)

SUMMARY

Magistrate’s Court found Appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Dennis L. Nelson, Justice; John L. Roe, Justice

Appearances:  Gloria J. Williams, pro se appellant; Sol Atkinson, for the Metlakatla Indian Community.

This matter came before the Metlakatla Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on May 3, 1995. Appellant appeals the May 2, 1995 judgment of the Magistrate’s Court finding her guilty of driving while intoxicated, in violation of § 13.20.02 of the Motor Vehicle Code.

JURISDICTION

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Appellant because she is a member of the Metlakatla Indian Community. The act which is the subject of this appeal occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Metlakatla Indian Reservation, giving rise to territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Ordinance 653, § 1 (Ordinance Relating to Law and Order), and Article V of the Metlakatla Constitution.

ISSUE ON APPEAL

    The issue on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence in the trial court record to support the Magistrate’s Court determination of probable cause and its finding that Appellant was guilty of driving while intoxicated.

4 NICS App. 84, MIC v. WILLIAMS (July 1996) p. 85

DISCUSSION

On April 15, 1995, a Metlakatla Police Officer cited Ms. Williams with driving while intoxicated. At trial, Appellant alleged that there was no probable cause for the officer to stop her. During the trial court hearing, Ms. Williams presented, in addition to her own testimony, one witness and a written statement from one of the passengers in Appellant’s car at the time of the incident. Appellant alleges that the Magistrate’s Court erred in finding probable cause existed and, subsequently, finding that she was guilty of driving while intoxicated.

The Magistrate’s Court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to hear the parties’ testimony, observe the demeanor of witnesses, determine witness credibility, and make its decision based on the evidence before it. Absent clear abuse of discretion, this Appellate Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, particularly insofar as a determination regarding the existence of probable cause.

The Magistrate’s Court, based on the evidence before it, made a determination that probable cause existed and that Appellant was guilty of driving while intoxicated. This Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Magistrate’s Court finding. There has been no showing that the Magistrate’s Court abused its discretion.

The judgment of the Magistrate’s Court is hereby affirmed.