Murder convict’s request to set aside verdict is denied

Superior Court Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama yesterday denied a motion to set aside the guilty verdict filed by Francisco Aguon Pua, who was convicted of the 2002 murder of a poker attendant.

Lizama ruled that there is sufficient evidence to support Pua’s conviction of felony murder.

“A rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It is possible that one of these elements was the uncharged ‘attempted robbery,’” the judge said, adding that he need not speculate as to the jury’s thought process.

Lizama cited the rule of the majority, which states “the inconsistent verdict shall stand.”

He said Pua need not have been convicted or even charged with the underlying felony, provided that the evidence supports a finding of felony murder on at least one of the statutory bases.

Police and court records show that on the morning of May 22, 2002, the body of Mostofa Faruk Parves was found inside Candi’s Poker in Tanapag with multiple stab wounds. After reviewing a surveillance video and interviewing local residents, detectives identified Pua as the primary suspect.

In August 2006, a jury found Pua guilty of murder in the first degree. The jurors, however, found him not guilty of robbery.

The court set the sentencing for Oct. 25, 2006 at 10am.

Attorney Edward Arriola, counsel for Pua, asked the court to set aside the guilty verdict. He asserted that his client can’t be convicted of felony murder since the defendant was acquitted of the underlying offense of robbery.

Lizama disagreed. He cited that to convict Pua under felony murder law, the jury instructions required jurors to find that the government prove each four elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, Lizama said, the government must prove that Pua unlawfully killed Parves, and second that he killed him with malice aforethought. Third, the judge said, the killing occurred during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of robbery, and lastly, the killing happened in Tanapag.

Lizama stressed that neither the jury instructions, which were based on the Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions, nor CNMI law required the jury to find that Pua successfully completed the robbery.

Lizama said he finds that the jury instructions were consistent with CNMI law, and that the jury’s finding did not deviate from the instructions.

He also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has twice upheld inconsistent verdicts on the grounds that such verdicts were within the jury’s discretion.