Appeal of woman convicted of striking common-law husband with car heard

The CNMI Supreme Court placed under advisement the appeal of a woman from her conviction and 10-year prison sentence for striking with a car her then-common law husband after their fight in March 2012.

Chief Justice Alexandro Castro, Associate Justice John A. Manglona, and Associate Justice Pro Tem Joseph N. Camacho presided over the hearing in Carmelita M. Guiao’s appeal on Tuesday.

Defense attorney Vicente T. Salas argued for Guiao’s appeal. Assistant attorney general James M. Zarones, chief of the Office of the Attorney General’s Solicitor Division, argued for the government’s opposition to the appeal.

The issues presented for review before the high court were whether then-Superior Court associate judge Perry B. Inos erred in not dismissing the case because of the government’s violation of the court’s “no contact” order and whether Inos erred in allowing the government’s witness who was not qualified as an expert witness to testify on matters reserved for experts.

On Aug. 30, 2012, a jury convicted Guiao of one count of assault with a dangerous weapon. Inos convicted her of hit and run, reckless driving, pedestrian’s right of way on sidewalk, operators failure to exercise due care, disturbing the peace, and criminal contempt.

In November 2012, Inos sentenced Guiao to 10 years in prison.

Guiao timely appealed. She is incarcerated at the Department of Corrections pending the results of her appeal.

Salas said at trial, John Saimon testified that he had an argument with Guiao on March 11, 2012, and that she accidentally struck him with their car.

Salas said Inos recessed for the day on Aug. 27, 2012, during Saimon’s testimony and advised Saimon not to discuss the case with anyone until both direct and cross examination are done.

Salas said during the continuation of Saimon’s testimony on Aug. 28, 2012, Guiao raised the issue of the prosecutor interviewing Saimon after he finished testifying on Aug. 27, 2012, in violation of the court’s order.

Inos denied Guiao’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Salas said Police Officer Adrian Mendiola testified that he responded to the crash scene that same day as a traffic investigator.

Salas said the prosecutor raised questions regarding Mendiola’s training, establishing a foundation to qualify Mendiola as an expert.

Inos instructed the jury that Mendiola has not been endorsed by the court as an expert in traffic.

Mendiola began testifying on the particulars of the traffic accident and reconstruction of the accident scene such as the significance of the skid marks.

Salas said the case should have been declared a mistrial as a result of the prosecutor’s unauthorized contact with Saimon in direct violation of the court’s “no contact” order.

Salas said the meeting between Saimon and then-assistant attorneys general James McAllister and Shelli Neal was intentionally arranged by the prosecution to contact Saimon in violation of the court’s “no contact” order.

Salas said contrary to his testimony, Saimon could not have seen who hit him because he was turned away from the object that hit him and was unconscious at the time of impact.

The defense lawyer said without Saimon’s testimony, Mendiola would have to testify as an expert to connect Guiao’s car to Saimon’s injuries.

Salas said the matter should have been vacated because Saimon, as the primary witness for the prosecution, is irretrievably tainted.

He said what Inos did, in continuing the trial, can never be remedied.

Salas said without Saimon’s questionable testimony as a witness to his own accident, the prosecution could not prove its case.

In the government’s opposition, Zarones argued that Guiao cannot demonstrate that Inos abused his discretion when he did not declare a mistrial because Guiao did not support her argument with legal authority.

Zarones said Guiao has not demonstrated that Inos abused his discretion when he denied her motion for a mistrial.

Zarones said the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that Guiao was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor said the evidence in this case overwhelmingly established that Guiao struck Saimon with her vehicle and then ran him over.