Supreme Court affirms conviction of restaurant robber

The Supreme Court of the CNMI has affirmed the conviction of Maximo SN. Muna for armed robbery, theft, criminal contempt, and disturbing the peace in an order that came out last Aug. 18.

On appeal, Muna argued the trial court erred by failing to give an instruction warning the jury to consider accomplice testimony with greater care and caution. He also argued his trial attorney’s failure to request the cautionary accomplice instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

On Oct. 4, 2012, a masked man wearing military fatigues and carrying a machete robbed the poker room at J’s Restaurant in Gualo Rai. Anthony Aldan was waiting outside in a getaway vehicle. But when Aldan saw people fleeing J’s, he panicked and drove away without the robber. Meanwhile, the robber successfully fled the scene. Later, police interviewed Aldan in connection with the robbery. Aldan confessed and implicated Muna in the robbery.

At trial, Aldan testified that Muna was the robber. According to Aldan, Muna had been staking out J’s Restaurant and suggested robbing it. Two restaurant employees testified they had seen Muna at the restaurant several times prior to the robbery. One employee testified he saw Muna wearing military fatigues and that on one occasion Muna suggested robbing the place. On cross-examination, Muna’s attorney questioned Aldan extensively. Aldan admitted that he participated in the robbery, was afraid of going to jail and losing his family, and that the detectives offered to try to help him during his interview. At no point during trial did Muna’s attorney request a special jury instruction concerning accomplice testimony.

After reviewing the law in other jurisdictions, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court had no independent duty to issue a cautionary accomplice instruction when no such instruction was requested. Furthermore, the court found no ineffective assistance of counsel because there was not a reasonable probability that trial counsel’s failure to request the cautionary accomplice instruction affected the outcome of the trial. Particularly, there was significant circumstantial evidence corroborating Aldan’s testimony, the trial court gave a general credibility instruction, and trial counsel extensively attacked Aldan’s credibility on cross-examination. Consequently, the court upheld Muna’s conviction.

The court’s full opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme16.html.

For further information, contact the Supreme Court at 236-9715. (PR)