4 NICS App. 80, MIC v. JORDAN (July 1996)

IN THE METLAKATLA TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

    METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY

    METLAKATLA, ALASKA

    Metlakatla Indian Community, Respondent

    v.

    Nina Jordan, Appellant

    No. 95-04 (July 17, 1996)

SUMMARY

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

FULL TEXT

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

Appearances:  Nina Jordan, 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 March 31, 1995. Appellant appeals the March 29, 1995 judgment of the Magistrate’s Court finding her guilty of speeding pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-705A, Title 13, Chapter 13.9.01(b)(2).

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 702, §§ 2(a) and (b), and Article V of the Metlakatla Constitution.

ISSUE ON APPEAL

The issue on appeal is whether the Magistrate’s Court abused its discretion in finding Appellant guilty of speeding.

4 NICS App. 80, MIC v. JORDAN (July 1996) p. 81

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s appeal is based on her contention that she was not speeding. Appellant admits that all her evidence was presented to the Magistrate’s Court during the trial court hearing.

The Magistrate’s Court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to hear the parties’ testimony, observe the demeanor of the witnessess, determine witness credibility, and make its decision based on the evidence before it. While this Court of Appeals may have accorded greater weight to Appellant’s credibility than did the lower court, there has been no showing that the Magistrate’s Court abused its discretion in reaching its decision. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, this Appellate Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.

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