Previous Story
Supreme Court vacates order excluding witness
On Dec. 28, 2017, the CNMI Supreme Court issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Allan A. Taitano, 2017 MP 19, holding a trial court may not exclude a prosecution’s key witness as a sanction for prosecutorial misconduct unless defendant demonstrates actual prejudice.
Allan A. Taitano was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting Nukey Manglona. Prior to trial, Taitano moved to exclude Manglona from testifying at trial as a sanction for prosecutorial misconduct. Taitano asserted his constitutional right to interview witnesses was violated when the prosecution interfered with Manglona’s free choice to speak with the defense.
He argued the prosecution discouraged Manglona by advising him not to speak with the defense because speaking with the defense would not be in his best interest. Also, Taitano asserted the prosecution engaged in a heated argument and cursed at the defense counsel in front of Manglona, which further discouraged him from speaking to the defense.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded there was prosecutorial misconduct, but the misconduct did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The court, however, excluded Manglona from testifying at trial as a sanction, noting the exclusion was to remedy potential prejudice.
The prosecution appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by excluding the alleged victim and sole eyewitness. The Supreme Court agreed, concluding “extreme sanctions, such as the exclusion of a key witness, are not appropriate remedies absent showing actual or tangible prejudice to the defendant.” Accordingly, the high court vacated the exclusion and remanded the case.
The high court’s full opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme17.html. (PR)
