Justices reverse man’s 2013 kidnapping, rape conviction

The CNMI Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of Michael Anthony Jackson, who was slapped in 2013 with 40 years and six months imprisonment for kidnapping and raping a 15-year-old girl on Saipan.

In an opinion issued last Dec. 30, the high court justices remanded Jackson’s case to the Superior Court for a new trial.

The justices ruled that Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho erred in not repeating substantive jury instructions at the close of evidence.

“In our view, Rule of Criminal Procedure 30 requires the trial court to give a comprehensive set of jury instructions at the end of the case, even at the cost of repeating earlier instructions,” said the high court’s opinion penned by Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro and concurred by Associate Justices John A. Manglona and Perry B. Inos.

The justices said closing instructions allow the jury to focus on the law, the evidence, and its responsibilities in order to arrive at a proper determination.

“Because of the importance of ensuring the jury’s understanding of the law and the requirements of Rule 30, we conclude that the failure to reiterate substantive jury instructions at the end of the trial is reversible error,” the justices said.

The justices said the victim testified under oath; Jackson had the opportunity to cross-examine her; and the judge, jury, and Jackson were able to review her demeanor while she testified.

Therefore, the justices said, although they find that Camacho erred in his application of Section 1318, they find no violation of Jackson’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

Section 1318 allows the use of closed-circuit television for child witnesses who find it difficult to communicate effectively under normal courtroom procedures.

The justices said based on a plain reading of the statute, it is clear and unambiguous that Section 1318 only applies to child witnesses under the age of 16 at the time of trial.

The victim was 17 at the time of trial.

At the appeal hearing, attorney Mun Su Park argued as court-appointed counsel for Jackson. Assistant attorney general Graef Clayton argued for the government’s opposition.

On April 26, 2013, the jury found Jackson guilty of kidnapping and sexual assault in the first degree. Camacho, who decided on the misdemeanor charge, also found the defendant guilty of assault.

Police said the girl was walking along Tun Joaquin Doi Road in Fina Sisu from an Internet café and was on her way home on Oct. 9, 2010, at about 1am when Jackson forced her into his car, brought her to an open field at the Saipan airport, and raped her inside his car. He then forced the girl to smoke methamphetamine or “ice.”

The girl later managed to run away, police said.

On May 15, 2013, Camacho slapped the then-34-year-old Jackson with a maximum jail term of 40 years and six months without possibility of parole.

Jackson then appealed. He asked the CNMI high court to reverse his convictions and remand the matter for a new trial, or in the alternative for re-sentencing.

The issues presented in Jackson’s appeal are whether Camacho erred by reading jury instructions that included elements of the charges prior to the evidentiary phase of the trial, whether the judge incorrectly interpreted and applied a statute, whether the judge erred when he declined to order a presentence investigation report, and whether the judge abused his discretion by imposing the maximum sentence.

The justices only ruled on the first two issues, saying they leave undecided the remaining issues because the jury instruction error yields the same relief the others would garner if granted.

In the government’s opposition, then-assistant attorney general James B. McAllister, contended that Camacho did not commit plain error by reading a typo in the jury instructions because the judge promptly and properly corrected the instructions.

McAllister said the judge did not commit plain error in reading the jury instructions at the beginning of trial because the jurors were better informed and better prepared to proceed with trial.

McAllister said the judge correctly interpreted the statute because the term “child” is easily understood as anyone under the age of 18.

He said the judge correctly applied the statute because the victim suffered great emotional trauma testifying in open court.

McAllister said Jackson’s right to confrontation was not violated because the judge used the least invasive means to accommodate the girl and Jackson and his counsel were still present in the courtroom when she testified.

McAllister said Camacho did not abuse his sentencing discretion because Jackson’s criminal history and the facts of this case justify serious punishment.