WARNER
v.
TERRITORY OF HAWAII
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant's sole contention, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, presented a question of local law, not a substantial federal question.
Appellant was convicted of procuring prostitution under Hawaii territorial law, and the conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Federal Question cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHES, District Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Territory of Hawaii of five separate offenses of inducing, compelling or procuring one “Gertrude * * * to practice prostitution * * § 11676, Revised Laws of Hawaii (1945), as amend ed by Act 26, Session Laws of Hawaii (1949) p. 597; see Territory v. Tam, 1942, 36 Haw. 32.
The trial court imposed a term of imprisonment for each offense and ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. The Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii affirmed the judgment. Territory v. Warner, 1952, 39 Haw. 386. Appellant now presents his appeal to this court.
The threshold issue in every case in the federal courts is the issue of jurisdiction. Mansfield, C. & L. M. Railway Co. v. Swan, 1884, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28, L.Ed. 462; Brown v. Keene, 1834, 8 Pet. 112, 33 U.S. 112, 8 L.Ed. 885. “This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not other-wise suggested * * Mansfield, C. & L. M. Railway Co. v. Swan, supra, 111 U.S. at page 382, 4 S.Ct. at page 511.
The Congress has conferred upon this court jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions of the Supreme Court of Hawaii in cases “involving the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States or any authority exercised thereunder * * 28 U.S.C. § 1293.
That prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction has long been construed to require that the federal question involved in the case be substantial. See: Fukunaga v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1929, 33 F. 2d 396; Kimbrel v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1930, 41 F. 2d 740; Young v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1947, 160 F. 2d 289, certiorari denied, 1947, 331 U.S. 849, 67 S.Ct. 1736, 91 L.Ed. 1858.
The federal question essential to appellate jurisdiction must moreover be first raised below and timely presented for consideration by the Supreme Court of the Territory. Prensa Insular, etc., v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1951, 189 F. 2d 1019; Romero v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1950, 182 F. 2d 864, 867-868; Ramos v. Leahy, 1 Cir., 1940, 111 F. 2d 955; Martinez v. Sancho, 1 Cir., 1940, 108 F. 2d 960.
Appellant’s only contention upon this appeal is that there was no evidence “to sustain an essential element of the charge, namely, that appellant did induce, compel and procure Gertrude * * * to practice prostitution * * * as charged in the indictment.”
In other words, upon the claimed ground that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict, appellant seeks reversal here of his conviction in the territorial courts. That is patently “a question of general [local] law, and does not involve either the Constitution or laws of the "United States.” Kimbrel v. Territory of Hawaii, supra, 41 F. 2d at page 741; Romero v. People of Puerto Rico, supra, 182 F. 2d at page 870; cf. Palakiko v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1951, 188 F. 2d 54.
Clearly then, the appeal is not within the jurisdiction of this court. See Bailey v. Central Vermont Ry., 1943, 319 U.S. 350, 355-356, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 87 L.Ed. 1444. If it were, we should dismiss it as frivolous.
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest T. Page v. United States, 356 F.2d 337 (9th Cir. 1966)
-
Whittemore v. Farrington, 234 F.2d 221 (9th Cir. 1956)
-
Lewis v. Territory of Hawaii, 210 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1954)
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Mansfield v. Swan & Another, 111 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1884)
- Bailey v. Cent. Vt. Ry., Inc., 319 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1943)
- Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112 (U.S. 1834)
- Fukunaga v. Territory of Hawaii, 33 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1929)
- Smith v. United States, 331 U.S. 849 (U.S. 1947)
- Young v. Territory of Hawaii, 160 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1947)
- John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Gaunt, 331 U.S. 849 (U.S. 1947)
- Romero v. People of Puerto RICO, 182 F.2d 864 (1st Cir. 1950)
- Palakiko v. Territory of Hawaii, 188 F.2d 54 (9th Cir. 1951)
- Prensa Insular de Puerto RICO, Inc. v. People of Puerto RICO, 189 F.2d 1019 (1st Cir. 1951)