OAG did not violate double jeopardy clause—Wiseman

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman has denied a request to dismiss two of the five charges filed against a 27-year-old man accused of striking an elderly man with a PVC pipe and a drum can on the face and head.

Matt Souneng had asked for the dismissal of two counts of assault and battery, citing the double jeopardy clause, which protects an individual against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense.

Wiseman ruled, however, that the double jeopardy clause is not offended by the prosecution charging Souneng with two counts of assault and battery, based on multiple and distinct criminal impulses separated by sufficient intervening events.

The Office of the Attorney General had originally charged Souneng with one count of aggravated assault and battery, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, two counts of assault and battery, one count of senior citizen physical abuse, one count of obstructing justice, and one count of resisting arrest.

Souneng, through assistant public defender Eden Schwartz, asked the court to dismiss one count of assault with a dangerous weapon, one count of assault and battery, and one count of resisting arrest, saying they violate Souneng’s double jeopardy guarantees because they are part of the same course of conduct and thus must be charged as a single offense.

The OAG amended the charges, dismissing count 2 assault with a dangerous weapon, count 6 senior citizen physical abuse, and count 7 obstructing justice. Thus, the remaining charges are count 1 assault with a dangerous weapon (using a metal drum can), count 2 aggravated assault and battery, count 3 assault and battery (using a metal drum can), count 4 assault and battery (using a PVC pipe), and count 5 resisting arrest.

In denying Souneng’s motion, Wiseman said the court must look to the CNMI Supreme Court case interpreting the double jeopardy clause in the context of assaultive conduct in order to determine whether the prosecution charging two separate counts of the same statute for conduct that occurred within minutes violates a defendant’s constitutional guarantees.

In this case, Wiseman said, Souneng hit the victim with a PVC pipe on the head and threw the pipe at the victim’s back, before running away. This constitutes the first of assaultive conduct, Wiseman said.

After Souneng ran away across the street, the victim chased him around a parked van at least twice before losing sight of the defendant, Wiseman said.

At this point, the judge said, the defendant came out from hiding and hit the victim on the back of his head with a metal drum can cover, causing him to fall to the ground and lose consciousness.

“This constitutes a second violation, with sufficient intervening conduct to indicate a separate criminal impulse as envisioned by the Supreme Court,” Wiseman said.

He said the second criminal impulse was separate and distinct from the first, which occurred across the street after significant time had passed.

“Thus, the court finds that the assaultive conduct in this case was not part of a single criminal impulse, and that the prosecution does not violate the double jeopardy clause by charging two separate violations of the same statute,” the judge said.

According to police investigation, that incident happened on Nov. 24, 2013, in Koblerville, when without warning, Souneng struck the victim with a PVC pipe on the face outside the latter’s house. The victim ran toward his garage but the suspect threw the pipe, hitting him on the back.

The victim grabbed the pipe and chased Souneng, who ran across the road. The suspect picked up a drum can and hit the victim’s head with it. The victim collapsed for a few minutes due to head injuries.

Souneng also allegedly pushed a responding police officer in the chest and resisted being handcuffed.