High court denies alleged rapist’s motion to stay trial

The Supreme Court for the CNMI has denied the motion to stay trial proceedings filed by an alleged rapist who has also petitioned the high court to disqualify all Superior Court judges from hearing his case.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on William Abraczinskas’ motion to stay trial proceedings pending a ruling on his previous petition to disqualify all Superior Court judges from hearing his case.

Abraczinkas, 34, is accused of sexually assaulting a co-worker last April 8 and is facing charges of sexual assault in the first degree, assault and battery, and disturbing the peace,

In its ruling, the court denied Abraczinskas’ motion stating that he must first file the motion with the Superior Court.

“To grant a stay, Abraczinskas must show that moving first in the Superior Court would be impracticable; or state that, a motion having been made, the Superior Court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested and state any reasons given by the Superior Court for its action. The motion lacks a showing it was impracticable to first apply for a stay, or statement that the court denied or failed to grant the stay and its reason. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to stay the trial proceedings,” the ruling stated.

After denying Abraczinskas’ motion for disqualification, the Supreme court scheduled the criminal case for a jury trial on Oct. 16.

The court has also ordered the parties to appear for a pre-trial conference on August 30.

In addition, the court has also ordered the respondents named in Abraczinskas’ petition to answer the petition by Aug. 21, so that Abraczinskas may reply no later than August 28.

Previously, Abraczinskas, a law clerk of Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth Govendo and defendant in a rape case, filed a petition to disqualify all Superior Court judges from presiding over his case.

Specifically, the defense requested the high court to issue writs of prohibition and mandamus, ordering Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph Camacho to make a finding consistent with the evidence presented at court, that the appearance of impropriety in this matter is unquestionable and that the trial court should recuse itself from this case.

The defense argues that the trial court order denying the defense’s motion to disqualify all Superior Court judges from this case, was erroneous as a matter of law.

“The defendant in the matter was an employee of the judiciary, the complaining witness in this matter was at the time of allegation also an employee of the judiciary and remains a current employee of the judiciary. Rule 1 CMC 3308(a) read together with the NMI Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3©(a) does not require a finding of actual bias or impartiality, only that a reasonable person might question the judge’s impartiality,” the petition said.

Abraczinskas, instead, wants a special judge to be appointed to hear this case instead.