Former Correction officer’s motion for acquittal denied

Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth L. Govendo has denied former Corrections officer Ray Anthony Maratita Camacho’s motion to be acquitted of assaulting an inmate inside the Department of Corrections.

In an order on Wednesday, Govendo said the evidence shows that Camacho’s actions “were unlawful beyond a reasonable doubt.”

He said regulation clearly bars the use of chokeholds yet there was ample testimony that Camacho used a chokehold on Ryan Cavalear.

Govendo found credible the testimony of Corrections officer Jesse Taitano, who characterized Camacho’s hold as a guillotine lock, a type of sleeper hold prohibited by Correction policies and procedures.

Further, Govendo said, police officer Paul Ichihara testified seeing marks on Cavalear’s neck and noticed that Cavalear was in considerable pain.

Govendo said Taitano and Ichihara’s testimonies are consistent with the court’s finding that Camacho used a prohibited chokehold on Cavalear and that such action is “unlawful.”

Therefore, the judge said, he finds that the term “unlawful” as applied to the facts of this case is not vague.

Following an eight-day bench trial, last April 18 Govendo found the 37-year-old Camacho guilty of assault and battery over the beating of Cavalear at Corrections on April 1, 2016.

Sentencing will be on June 6, 2017, at 1:30pm.

During the trial, Camacho, through counsel Colin Thompson, twice moved for a motion for judgment of acquittal, once after the government rested and another at the close of all evidence.

The latter motion for judgment of acquittal additionally argued that the assault and battery statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of the case.

Govendo denied both motions.

Camacho, through counsel, urged the court once more to determine its motion for judgment of acquittal.

In denying the defendant’s renewed motion, Govendo said a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 is inapplicable in bench trials.

Nevertheless, Govendo considered the merits of Camacho’s motion, particularly whether the term “unlawful” in the assault and battery statute is unconstitutionally vague.

As the term “unlawful” relates to those acts that are contrary to regulations, Camacho argued that Correction’s policies and regulations do not clearly indicate whether chokeholds are prohibited as an appropriate use of force technique.

Govendo finds in the contrary.

Govendo said Correction’s polices and regulations clearly establish that chokeholds are prohibited.

The judge noted that Correction’s policies and regulations state that “chokeholds, blows to the head, face and neck are prohibited.”