2 NICS App. 183, Lummi Nation v. Solomon (September 1992)

IN THE LUMMI TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

LUMMI INDIAN RESERVATION

BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON

Lummi Indian Nation v. Erin M. Solomon

Nos. 92.4 CRP 2522-2524, 2637-39, 2641 (September 21, 1992)

SUMMARY

Convicted on charges of indecent liberties, possession of drug paraphernalia, and several counts of disobedience of a lawful order of the court, criminal defendant Erin Solomon appealed a conviction in the Lummi Tribal Court, citing three grounds--the lack of a spokesperson to represent him at trial, failure of the trial court to determine the credibility of two key witnesses, and damaging testimony by juvenile witnesses. The Tribal Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that Solomon had knowingly waived his right to representation at trial and that he had been afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and challenge their testimony.

FULL TEXT

Before:	Chief Justice Douglas W. Hutchinson, Associate Justice Marguerite Edwards, and Associate Justice Rose Purser.
Appearances:	Tribal prosecutor Iris Shue appeared for the Lummi Indian Nation; spokesperson Ronald Morris appeared for defendant Erin Solomon.

HEARING ON APPEAL

This matter having come on to be heard on a timely petition of the defendant, and all parties receiving notice that the preliminary hearing would be held at 10:30 A.M. on September 21, 1992, at the Lummi Tribal Court, the court convened at the scheduled time and place.

Upon motion by the tribal prosecutor, with no objection from the appellant, the witness exclusion rule was invoked.

Petitioner had set out three grounds for his appeal of the trial court decision and sentence: (1) with no spokesperson, he was unfairly prejudiced due to lack of knowledge of court procedures; (2) credibility of two key witness was never determined; and, (3) the testimony of juvenile witnesses was damaging.

2 NICS App. 183, Lummi Nation v. Solomon (September 1992) p. 184

By argument the spokesperson addressed each of the issues in turn. He particularly stressed that the youth and inexperience of the defendant at the time of trial, and his lack of knowledge of court procedures, put him at a gross disadvantage.

In rebuttal the prosecutor offered evidence that the defendant had been fully informed of the right to obtain an attorney or spokesperson but willingly chose to represent himself at trial. She then argued that at trial he was given the opportunity to raise the issue of witness credibility and to dilute the effect of witness testimony on cross-examination, but instead he chose to ask no questions of the witnesses.

After each party was given the opportunity to argue and rebut, the court was recessed for deliberation by the judges. When the court was again convened shortly thereafter, the opinion of the court was delivered with the parties present.

FINDING

The Tribal Court of Appeals has found that, upon consideration of the argument and evidence presented, the defendant-appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that he had been unfairly prejudiced in the trial court on the grounds stated in his appeal petition. It is the opinion of this court that the defendant-appellant made a knowing and conscious waiver of his right to representative counsel, and that he was afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and challenge their credibility and testimony.

For these reasons, the defendant-appellant's petition for a trial de novo is denied, the trial court's judgment is affirmed, and the sentence imposed by the trial court is ordered to be carried out this day.