High court reverses Guiao conviction

On March 20, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Commonwealth v. Carmelita M. Guiao, 2017 MP 2. The high court, in two to one majority, granted Carmelita M. Guiao’s petition for a rehearing and, upon rehearing, reversed her conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon and remanded the case for a new trial.

Guiao was tried before a jury and was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon for hitting her then-boyfriend John Saimon with a hot frying pan.

Guiao appealed her conviction with the Supreme Court in 2013, arguing, among other issues, that her due process rights were violated because the trial court refused to provide jury instructions on assault and assault and battery as lesser included offenses of assault with a dangerous weapon.

In 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding the trial court had no duty to provide the lesser included offense instructions because the jury was only responsible for deciding the greater offense of assault with a dangerous weapon.

Subsequently, Guiao petitioned for a rehearing, arguing the high court made an error in its decision. In her petition, Guiao argued the lesser included offense instruction was warranted by the evidence and the Supreme Court erred in concluding that lesser offense jury instruction is not required when the offense is before the bench and not the jury.

On review, the majority concluded the trial court was correct to deny a lesser included jury instruction on assault but should have given a lesser included instruction of assault and battery. Under 6 CMC 102(f), a dangerous weapon is one that is capable of causing fatal wound or injury. The majority determined the trial court should have provided the jury the lesser included instruction of assault and battery because there was “substantial evidence casting doubt on whether the pan in question was a dangerous weapon.”

Associate Justice John A. Manglona dissented, expressing his view that the trial court’s denial of a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault and battery in this case was not plain error, and therefore the 2015 decision did not warrant rehearing.

The high court’s full opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme16.html. For further information, contact the Supreme Court at 236-9800. (NMI Judiciary)