Judge finds sufficient charging info vs woman in illegal sponsorship case

The Superior Court has determined that the charging information filed against one of three accused of engaging in illegal sponsorship of 19 alien workers is sufficient.

Associate Judge David A. Wiseman ruled that in the case against Stacy N. Bautista, the government, through the Attorney General’s Office, provided her with the offense charged as well as the facts supporting those charges.

Wiseman denied Bautista’s motion for a bill of particulars in the information charging her with conspiracy to commit theft by deception.

Bill of particulars refers to list of written statements made by a party to a court proceeding, upon demand of another party in the case that seeks for more details of a claim or defense.

Citing a previous CNMI Supreme Court ruling, Wiseman said the government has satisfied its burden in the charging information because the information contained the language of the statutes allegedly violated, the date of the action, and the specific action that created liability.

The judge set a status conference in the case for Sept. 24, 2008 at 9am.

According to court records, Bautista, also known as Stacy Dela Cerna, was arrested on May 16, 2008. The government later charged her with conspiracy to commit theft by deception, theft by deception, entrepreneurship fraud, and document fraud.

Bautista filed a motion for a bill of particulars. She was accused of being involved in an immigration scheme where she and co-defendants would accept money from persons seeking an entry permit by promising to sponsor them for employment, but not requiring them to work pursuant to a labor contract.

Bautista, through assistant public defender Douglas Hartig, underscored the need for a bill of particulars because the information does not give a description of the charges that have been filed.

Hartig argued that merely tracking the language of the statute in the information fails to provide the defendant with any specificity as to the charges he must defend against.

Hartig further argued that because of this insufficiency they will be unable to effectively conduct pretrial investigation and interview witnesses.

The government, through assistant attorney general Katie Busenkell, asserted that the information is sufficient according to the Commonwealth Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Busenkell also pointed out that the court should not order a bill of particulars because discovery in the present case has not yet been completed.

In denying the defendant’s motion, Wiseman explained that a defendant may ask for a bill of particulars if he or she is given insufficient notice of the charges that have been filed against him or her.

The judge said the main purpose behind a bill of information is to provide the defendant notice of the charges that have been filed against him or her as well as listing the acts committed that provided the basis for such charges.

“If the Bill of Information does not tell the defendant what acts or crimes he committed then he may ask for a Bill of Particulars, and if the trial court deems it necessary may grant their issuance,” Wiseman said.

However, the judge emphasized, a defendant has no unconditional right to obtain a bill of particulars.

A bill of particulars, he said, is not needed if the information itself provides sufficient details of the charges and the government provides full discovery to the defense.

Count IV of the information, he said, describes the actors, acts, time, date, statutes being violated, and actions that were taken to engender criminal liability.

Wiseman said count IV neither surprises nor places Bautista in double jeopardy.

He said the government has provided Bautista with sufficient notice of the charges to prepare an adequate defense and discovery will solve any lingering issues that could necessitate a bill of particulars.

Wiseman said the information is sufficient to put the defendant on notice and allow preparation of an adequate defense.

Bautista co-defendants are Elenita E. Camacho and Weena P. Dulay.

Immigration investigator Erwin Flores of the Attorney General’s Office’s Investigation Unit stated in his report that based on information provided by a “cooperating witness” corroborated by other evidence, beginning in May 2006 to March 2008, Bautista and Camacho executed nonresident worker contract applications to the Department of Labor and the Division of Immigration to employ 19 alien workers.

Flores said the applications were filed so these alien workers could acquire an immigration benefit through the sponsorship scheme.

Bautista, Camacho, and Dulay allegedly created and used commercial enterprises such as GEM Professional Service, WPD Accounting Service, and Rhen Tailoring Dress Shop for the purpose of charging money to employ those workers and allow them to remain in the CNMI.