Camacho agrees to hear appeal in hit-and-run case

Citing the CNMI Supreme Court’s hearings protocol due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho has found unwarranted the Office of the Attorney General’s request for the court to give the CNMI government 30 more days to file a notice of appeal about a restitution issue in a fatal vehicular hit-and-run case.

Camacho, however, said he understands that the OAG considers its motion to be time-sensitive in connection with the traffic case against Esekiel “Easy” Smith. He agreed to hear the government’s motion for more time this Wednesday, April 29, at 10am at the Supreme Court courtroom.

Citing the NMI Supreme Court’s COVID-19 order, Camacho said the motion for extension of time does not require testimony from witnesses, so the parties may appear via videoconference for the oral argument. If the parties wish to appear by video conference, the judge said, then it is the responsibility of the party/parties to make advance arrangements with the court’s information technology staff.

Camacho said as the motion may require extensive arguments, videoconferencing will be allowed as the court will be able to see and hear the parties.

“The use of only audio/telephone will not be allowed,” he said.

In the government’s motion for extension, assistant attorney general J. Robert Glass Jr. said more time is needed to allow Camacho to address the government’s motion for reconsideration of his ruling.

Last March 30, Camacho ruled that the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services and the Commonwealth Healthcare Corp. are not entitled to restitution over Melton Agulto’s death because they are only third-party indirect victims.

Camacho denied the government’s request to hold Smith liable to pay $1,866 in restitution for the medical services provided by DFEMS and CHCC to Agulto.

The judge, however, found that Smith is liable for $4,972 in restitution to Agulto’s mother, Gloria Cabrera. Smith conceded he owed that amount.

The OAG then asked Camacho to reconsider his ruling. The OAG also filed a motion for extension.

Should the government file a notice of appeal, it is likely that jurisdiction will become an issue, Glass said .

Should Camacho grant the government’s motion for reconsideration and award restitution to Agulto, it would render moot the need for an appeal, he added.

Currently, the notice of appeal would be due by April 29, 2020. A 30-day extension would give the parties until May 29, 2020, to file a notice of appeal.

In the motion for reconsideration, Glass asserted that the court should amend its judgment to include the $1,866 bills from CHCC and DFEMS to be paid to Agulto.

Glass said there is no question that Agulto is the direct victim in this case. To deny the direct crime victim’s estate recovery for these bills would be clear error and a manifest injustice, he added.

Assistant public defender Jean Pierre Nogues, counsel for Smith, argued that DFEMS and CHCC were not victims in this case and are not entitled to restitution, and that the tort defense of comparative negligence should apply in this matter.

In Smith’s opposition to the motion for reconsideration, Nogues said Agulto is not entitled to restitution for his hospital bills because he is dead and cannot pay any bills himself.

According to court records, Smith, who was driving a vehicle north in Puerto Rico after midnight on Aug. 19, 2018, hit Agulto as the latter was walking in the middle of the street. Smith fled the scene after the accident. Agulto died as a result of his injuries.

Later that day, Smith surrendered to the police.

On Jan. 30, 2019, Smith pleaded guilty to the charges of leaving an accident scene and reckless driving. He was sentenced to five years and six months in prison, with the last six months suspended. Smith was ordered to pay restitution to Agulto’s family.

The parties agreed that, at a minimum, Smith owed $1,000 in restitution. The defendant immediately paid the amount from the bail money that he had posted. The parties disagreed as to how much is owed in restitution and to whom.