Justices hear appeal of man who got 30 years for sex abuse

The CNMI Supreme Court heard on Wednesday the appeal of a 54-year-old man who was slapped with a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison for sexually abusing a then-16-year-old girl in 2009.

After listening to the counsels’ arguments, Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro and associate justices John A. Manglona and Perry B. Inos placed defendant Alfredo E. Reyes’ appeal under advisement.

Attorney Vincent J. Seman argued for defendant Reyes. Assistant attorney general Betsy Weintraub appeared for the government.

In his appeal, Reyes asked the Supreme Court to reverse his conviction and his sentence for three counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and three counts of assault and battery and remand this matter to the Superior Court for a new trial.

In the alternative, Reyes asked the high court for re-sentencing, and any other such relief that the court deems proper and necessary.

Seman presented the issue whether Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho erred by failing to give substantive instructions to the jury concerning the elements of the charges against Reyes upon completion of the evidentiary phase of the trial.

Seman also raised the issue whether Camacho abused his discretion and failed to sufficiently articulate his justifications for the sentence imposed on Reyes after he denied defendant’s request for a presentence investigation report.

On Dec. 13, 2013, a jury convicted Reyes of three counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. Camacho found the defendant guilty of three counts of assault and battery.

On Jan. 22, 2014, Camacho slapped Reyes with a maximum sentence of 30 years imprisonment, without the possibility of parole or early release.

Camacho said he imposed the maximum sentence so that Reyes and others who sexually abuse children will be justly punished and deterred. He said his court will hear children who seek protection from sexual abuse.

In Reyes’ appeal, Seman said Camacho erred by prematurely reading the elements of the charges against the defendant as part of the jury instructions to the jury only at the beginning of the proceedings, prior to the introduction of any evidence, prior to certain counts being ultimately dismissed, and prior to jury deliberation of the remaining charges.

Seman said ultimately Camacho did not read the jury substantive instructions after all the evidence had been presented.

“The purpose of providing jury instructions at the close of evidence is to afford the jury with the relevant legal principles and to avoid any perceived conflicts from prior jury instructions,” said Seman in defendant’s pleadings.

Seman said such failure to provide definitive instructions after the close of proof deprived his client of his right to due process and violated NMI Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.

“As a result of this error, Mr. Reyes’ conviction should be vacated and remanded for retrial,” he said.

Seman said the high court should reverse the sentence because Camacho abused his discretion by failing to provide sufficient record of his denial of a request for a presentence investigation.

Assistant attorney general Barbara Cepeda was the one who filed the government’s opposition to the appeal.

In the government’s brief, Cepeda said the government concedes that Camacho erred by failing to read the substantive jury instructions after the close of the evidence.

However, Cepeda said, Reyes has not demonstrated that the judge’s error affected his substantial rights and he has not shown how the error changed the outcome of the trial.

Cepeda said for good reason, the judge’s failure to read the substantive jury instructions at the close of evidence does not require a reversal of defendant’s convictions.

Cepeda said the government also concedes that Camacho abused his discretion by failing to order a presentence investigation.

Thus, she said, the trial court has no record to show how it fashioned a careful and individualized sentence for Reyes.

Cepeda said given the trial court’s failure to order a presentence investigation report, the government concedes that Reyes’ sentence should be vacated and this matter should be remanded to the trial court to order a presentence investigation report and resentence the defendant.

According to the prosecution, Reyes sexually abused the girl at Laulau Beach in May 2009, at Coral Ocean Point beach in September 2009, and in the jungle area near Hawaiian Rock Co. in December 2009.