Law vs sexual assault in the first degree
On Sept. 16, 2015, Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety published portions of an order issued by Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho of the Superior Court. As quoted in the newspapers, the court’s order states that “[t]he Legislature inadvertently removed the safeguard for when a 16 or 17 year old does not consent to have sex with someone who is 18, 19, or 20 years old.” The court went on to state that “[t]his case is one of several that the court has seen when a 16 or 17 year [sic] is allegedly raped but the law can not [sic] protect these alleged victims—because there is no law [sic].”
The Office of the Attorney General wishes to state the law of the Commonwealth on this issue. A person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree if:
(1) He or she is within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth; and
(2) He or she
a. Engages in sexual penetration with another person without consent of that person; OR
b. Attempts to engage in sexual penetration with another person without consent of that person and causes serious bodily injury to that person; OR
c. Engages in sexual penetration with another person who the offender knows is mentally incapable AND who is in the offender’s care, by authority of law or in a facility or program required to be licensed in the Commonwealth; OR
d. Engages in sexual penetration with a person who the offender knows is unaware that a sexual act is being committed AND the offender is a healthcare worker AND the offender occurs during the course of professional treatment of the victim.
The defenses to sexual assault in the first degree are codified by 6 CMC § 1305. The ages of the victim and the offender are not relevant to a charge of sexual assault in the first degree.
Any person who commits a sexual assault may be punished by up to 30 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $50,000. 6 CMC § 1301(b).
The Office of the Attorney General wishes to be clear that any person that commits a sexual assault will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Edward Manibusan
CNMI Attorney General
Capital Hill, Saipan
Buenas Mr. Attorney General,
Your opinion is just an opinion and the opinion of the court supersedes your opinion. You may try to prosecute anyone in accordance with the law, but our judicial system has the final say so brought before them. How about communicate with our elected officials to iron out what Honorable Camacho interpret within our statute? You may cry all you want, but our judges have the final decision relating to charges you brought against anyone in our community. It is call the separation of powers, because you can not charge and convict an individual at the same time.
Si Yu’us Ma’ase
Jun I don’t think you want to involve yourself with these issues without a law degree
Buenas John,
If my memory served me right, Honorable Lincoln and many other individuals became prominent lawyer without a law degree.
In our society, there are separate branches of government and over the years, each branches of the government made their own decisions. To my understanding, our attorney general needs to respect our judicial decisions or court ruling. If our attorney general disagrees with any of our court rulings, there are procedures to follow and one of them is to route his concerns through our appellate court to clarify his opinion or statute. My point is writing to the editor is not the appropriate way of addressing our judicial system.
Si Yu’us Ma’ase
Jun,
Nonsense, public opinion put the AG where he is, and he should use it to achieve his aims whenever he can….So long as he is not being unethical, and he is not…
@John: I think the notion that lawyer’s “alone” can interpret the law and exclusive to lawyers only is misguided!
As an individual or a group of individuals, can also represent yourself/themselves in any court of law if the need arises. Though the court procedures are required to represent yourselves before the judge but actually an individual can represent him/herself before any judge presiding the case if it so allowed by the same. Si yuus maase.
Buenas NMSoria,
I had represented myself (pro se) on several occasions in several jurisdictions and I did not have to have a law degree. I did all the court filings and I was successful doing it.
Si Yu’us Ma’ase
Good word, AG. Praise!
No jun, the AG’s exposition is not “just an opinion.”
The law is the law, regardless of what errors lawyers or judges may make.
Fortunately there are procedures for the OAG to pursue. These include a Motion for Reconsideration, which has been filed. If unavailing, there is appellate recourse.
The key point made by AG Manibusan is that it is not open season on 16- to 17-year-old women by 18- to 20-year-old would-be rapists.
@CNMI Lawyer: I have a high respect to AG Manibusan. However, I disagree with what you said, “…AG’s exposition is not “just an opinion.”
I agree with “jun!”
There is no such “permanent interpretation/opinion of the law”. The higher court (judicial branch) is the final arbiter of the said law. Anything below and above such interpretation is also an “opinion”. Even the “final rule” of the high court is also an opinion.
Can you explain your: “…AG’s exposition is not “just an opinion.” What is it then?
The law is clear and must be followed. No means no, with penetration or not. But in order for it to fit the sexual assault laws the acts must violate the law(s).