Cite as FSM v. Carl, 1 FSM Intrm. 1 (Pon. 1981)
Cr. No. 1981-500
When one person, encouraged by the defendant to commit an assault, carries out the assault and then proceeds to commit robbery by the taking of turtle meat from the possession of the assaulted person, the defendant is not guilty of robbery where: 1) he did not suggest taking of the turtle meat or anything or value: 2) there is no showing that he could have foreseen the assault would be followed by the taking of something of value; and 3) the defendant left the premises before the turtle meat was taken. FSM v. Carl, 1 FSM Intrm. 1,2 (Pon. 1981).
This criminal proceeding against defendant, Semeai Mongkeya, was instituted in Ponape on July 23, 1981 as part of a joint prosecution against him and defendant Rotrick Carl for the crime of robbery, as prohibited by 11 F.S.M.C. 920. The information alleged that the defendants struck several women at the Ifumi Hotel in Kolonia, and took turtle meat from them on July 22, 1981.
A preliminary examination was held on July 31, 1981. The prosecution called only one witness, Roslain Benjamin, who was working at the hotel that night and was one of the complainants. Another witness was present for the apparent purpose of testifying but, after hearing Ms. Benjamin's testimony, the state's attorney declined to call further witnesses.
Ms. Benjamin's testimony was to the effect that defendant Mongkeya suggested to another male that the other should assault a waitress who had refused to Mr. Mongkeya's demand that she buy beer for him. Defendant Mongkeya also was said to have pushed another waitress against the wall and snatched
a telephone from her to prevent her from calling the police to protect the waitress then being beaten at Mr. Mongkeya's earlier suggestion. These acts occurred in a different room from where the turtle meat was located in the refrigerator. Mr. Mongkeya said nothing, and apparently knew nothing, about the turtle meat. He wandered out of the area before the turtle meat was located or taken.
Mr. Mongkeya's actions on the night in question, if the evidence adduced against him is to be regarded as true, were far from praiseworthy. The charge against defendant Mongkeya, however, is robbery, which requires a linkage between: (1) the threat or use of violence, and (2) the taking of something of value. The testimony adduced at the preliminary examination indicates that Mr. Mongkeya did not take or at any time possess the turtle meat. He also was not shown to have suggested that the turtle meat or anything else of value be taken. Further he left the area apparently without being aware that the turtle meat had been taken or was going to be taken. Nothing in the record indicates even that he could have foreseen that the physical assault that he suggested or his own act in pushing the waitress against the wall would be followed by the taking of anything of value.
Hence, the evidence introduced by the prosecution at the preliminary examination establishes that there is no probable cause to believe that Semeai Mongkeya is guilty of the crime of robbery. 1
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the information filed in this action on July 28, 1981 is dismissed as to defendant Semeai Mongkeya, that the order fixing bail for defendant Mongkeya is set aside, that the surety is released from her obligations under the surety bond executed on July 27, 1981, and that defendant Mongkeya is discharged from this action.
So ordered this 3rd day of August, 1981.
/s/
----------------------------------
EDWARD C. KING
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the Federated
States of Micronesia
1. There is no indication that the beatings administered were, or were intended to be, sufficiently severe to justify a charge of aggravated assault under 11 F.S.M.C. 918. Thus this Court would not have jurisdiction over any claim which might be brought against Mr. Mongkeya under the facts related in the preliminary examination, and further prosecution against him if any, would have to proceed in the Trust Territory High Court or District Court.