Cite as State of Yap v. Yinnifel, (Yap St 1994)
[page 1]



Case No. CR. 1994-082

     Defendant came before this Court to petition for daytime release to attend the funeral of his mother-in-law. Due to the closeness in time of the petition and the date of release sought, we rule the motion in defendant's favor, with restrictions to apply in future motions of this type.

     As was stated in Googmad, this Court has the power to modify decisions in the interest of justice, that modification not amounting to a reduction of sentence. We also decided in Googdow that an Executive Order not attempt to bind the discretion or jurisdiction of the Court in carrying out it's judicial function for Constitutional separation of powers reasons.

     It must be pointed out at this time, however, that in no decision by this Court have we ever attempted to interfere with the authority or  jurisdiction of the Executive and it's proper role in rendering Executive Orders and controlling it's own branches. Separation of powers also requires this Court to give great deference to the regulation of an executive branch by the Governor.

     As stated in Googmad, good cause is shown in "emergency,

[page 2]

Aggravating and unjust circumstances.'' (Googmad, p. 3, line 5-8). The Governor has issued regulations allowing for release in the specific instance of a funeral. If the defense in the future has not shown this Court that they have attempted to comply with the Governor's regulations and failed to secure release, then it is hard for this Court to imagine they are pleading good cause by showing "emergency, aggravating or unjust circumstances". The defendant has not first pursued options available to him that do not require this Court's intervention.
     Until defendant exhausts all other possibilities, this Court should not be involved for extenuating circumstances showing good cause do not exist. Further, as the police are required a certain latitude in their operation of the prison system, as evidenced by the Governor's regulations, the mere denial of release of one of the prisoners is not sufficient good cause for this Court's intervention. The defendant must show that the denial is without basis or reason.

Dated: Aug. 15, 1994

                         Samuel Falanruw
                         Chief Justice

Filed: Aug. 15, 1994
                         Clerk of Courts
Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-/Q-Fj2L6:mIۺk~l Nj]=i{~w4) V RC- ~M4r $8ƸY6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}J!oG495# 2d,iȝ?3DiU'~?ٗ FaQEmp!v=6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6}6