The findings of the trial court may not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
A trial court has wide latitude and discretion in supervising the time limits, the scope, and the extent of argument and summation. Rulings on such issues are subject to review for abuse of discretion. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
In case where closing argument limited to two minutes, strong evidence was presented of Appellant’s guilt, and rule limiting closing argument had dubious effect on jury’s verdict, it was not abuse of discretion to impose such a time limitation. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
Where counsel fails to timely object to the trial court's rulings on the time limits, scope, and extent of argument, there must be a showing of plain error to afford a basis of reversal. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
"Plain error" is defined as an error or defect which affects substantial rights. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
Where the evidence against a defendant is so strong that the absence of the purported error would not have changed the jury's verdict, plain error is seldom found. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
Where the evidence against a defendant is overwhelming and would not have affected the jury’s verdict, the Court’s time limitation on closing arguments will not constitute plain error. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
Appellant’s convictions for both Driving under the Influence (A.S.C.A. § 22.0707) and Careless Driving Causing Injury and Property Damage (A.S.C.A. § 22.0701) did not contravene A.S.C.A. § 46.3107(3) as neither violation was necessarily a violation of the other. Pule v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 7 (1997).
The trial court’s findings with regard to matai criteria can only be set
aside if clearly erroneous. Lealai v. Aoelua, 1 A.S.R.3d 12 (1997).
A.S.C.A. § 43.1011 does not
provide a clear standard of review of arbitrated condemnation proceedings. A.S.G. v. .Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19
(1997).
A.S.C.A. § 4.1044 provides for a
remand where substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because
the arbitrators’ decision violates of applicable constitutional or statutory
provisions, or if it is made upon unlawful procedure. A.S.G. v. .Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (1997).
In reviewing an arbitration
award, the reviewing Court need not determine the applicable standard of review
where it is apparent that the arbitrators failed to follow the specific
statutory procedures. A.S.G. v. .Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (1997).
A.S.C.A.
§ 43.1010 requires that the arbitration award contain findings or conclusions
of the panel; reflecting how the award was determined. A.S.G. v. .Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (1997).
Where
an award does not contain specific, written findings or conclusions of the
panel, but merely arrives at amount, the award should be remanded. A.S.G. v. .Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (1997).
Where case involved condemnation
of right of way for a sewer line, the appropriate written findings required
inclusion of a determination as to the placement of the sewer line through the
property, use and building restrictions applicable to the easement, government
access requirements, and conclusions as to the effects of such encumbrances
upon the market value of the parcel. A.S.G. v. .Annandale, 1 A.S.R.3d 19 (1997).
Questions of law are
reviewed de novo. In de novo
review, the appellate court must review the record in light of its own
independent judgment without giving special weight to the prior decision. Misaalefua v. Hudson, 1 A.S.R.3d
23 (1997).
Trial Court’s determination of the candidates'
hereditary rankings can only be set aside if clearly erroneous. Misaalefua v. Hudson, 1 A.S.R.3d
23 (1997).
Trial Court’s determination of the family clans
can only be set aside if clearly erroneous. Misaalefua v. Hudson, 1 A.S.R.3d
23 (1997).
Trial Court’s determination regarding the support of the majority of the
family can only be set aside if clearly erroneous. Misaalefua v. Hudson, 1 A.S.R.3d
23 (1997).
For an appellant to prevail on a claim of insufficient evidence, he must show that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Suani v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 28 (1997).
Trial court's factual findings with respect to the four matai title criteria can only be reversed if they are clearly erroneous. Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d 33 (1997).
Arguments regarding the specificity of the trial court’s findings should not be raised for the first time on appeal. Appellants who fail to raise such objections via motion to amend findings or a motion to make further findings will be said to have waived these issues for appeal. Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d 33 (1997).
A
rehearing is not a matter of right, but is a privilege granted at the
discretion of the appellate court. A.C.R. 40. Tuaolo v.
Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d
33 (1997).
The decision of an appellate court will stand unless the petitioner can present an argument demonstrating that the appellate court "overlooked or misapprehended" particular "points of law or fact." A.C.R. 40. Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 A.S.R.3d 33 (1997).