Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v Camacho [2009] MPSC 1; 2009 MP 1 (3 February 2009)

Notice: This slip opinion has not been certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for publication in the permanent law reports. Until certified, it is subject to revision or withdrawal. In any event of discrepancies between this slip opinion and the opinion certified for publication, the certified opinion controls. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, PO Box 502165 Saipan, MP 96950, phone [phone], fax [phone], e-mail [e-mail].

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee

V

JUAN B. CAMACHO,
Defendant-Appellant

SUPREME COURT NO. 06-0046-GA
SUPERIOR COURT NO. 04-0261B

SLIP OPINION

Cite as: 2009 MP 1

Decided February 3, 2009

Joseph L.G. Taijeron, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth Attorney General’s Office, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Brien Sers Nicholas, Esq. Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, for Defendant-Appellant
BEFORE: Miguel S. Demapan, Chief Justice; Alexandro C. Castro, Associate Justice; John A. Manglona, Associate Justice

Demapan, C.J.:

1 Defendant Juan Borja Camacho ("Camacho") appeals his conviction of two counts of first degree sexual abuse of a minor, arguing (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in admitting handwritten notations on a calendar found at his residence into evidence; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal; and (4) the trial court imposed a sentence that was "detrimental to the interest of justice" in violation of 6 CMC § 4102(d). We hold that because Camacho failed to submit any relevant portion of the trial transcript as part of his excerpts of record, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of the sufficiency of the evidence. Likewise, without a trial transcript, we are unable to review whether the trial court erroneously denied Camacho’s motion for acquittal or erroneously admitted the handwritten notations into evidence. We further hold that the trial court did not err in imposing Camacho’s sentence. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

2 On July 12, 2004, a twelve-year-old girl identified as C.P.T. ("the girl") and her parents visited the residence of their neighbor, fifty-six-year-old Camacho. During the visit, Camacho expressed his desire to marry the girl. The girl’s father refused the proposition and left angrily. In doing so, he left the girl and her mother alone with Camacho. Eventually Camacho, the girl, and her mother entered Camacho’s bedroom. Camacho then told the girl’s mother to leave the bedroom. After the girl’s mother left the room, Camacho shut the door and locked it. The girl’s mother knocked on the door shortly thereafter to tell Camacho she needed to leave. Camacho told her to leave without the girl, and she did so.

3 While in his bedroom, Camacho told the girl to get on the bed and take off her clothes. Camacho warned the girl that he would harm her if she cried. Camacho stated that marriage did not entail going to a church or a court. Rather, he stated that he and the girl would be married by having sexual intercourse. When Camacho asked the girl if she accepted his marriage proposal, she responded that she did not. Camacho then took her clothes off, gave her a hickey, and had sexual intercourse with her.

4 After the girl returned home, her mother and sister noticed the hickey on her neck. The girl’s sister testified that the girl had never had a hickey before. She also testified that her mother rubbed vinegar on the hickey, which virtually removed it. Thereafter, the girl’s parents argued over whether they should take her to the hospital. While the girl’s father wanted to take her to the hospital immediately, her mother refused.[1]

5 The next day, on July 13, 2004, Camacho visited the girl’s residence and noticed the girl was crying. The mother told him that the girl wanted to go with her father to the hospital. Camacho responded that if he saw her in her father’s vehicle, he would harm her father. Thereafter, the girl, her mother, and her siblings walked to Camacho’s residence. The mother testified that they went to Camacho’s residence because she and the father were still arguing over whether they should take the girl to the hospital. Soon after arriving, the girl’s siblings left, leaving the girl and her mother alone with Camacho. Although the girl wanted to depart with her siblings, Camacho blocked the door with his hands and prevented her from leaving.

6 Camacho told the girl he was going to have sex with her again. He then threatened her, saying she would not like it if he had to force her into the bedroom. The girl testified that Camacho’s demands made her feel worried and scared. The mother testified that Camacho then put his arm around the girl’s neck and brought her inside his bedroom. According to the girl, Camacho shut his bedroom door, locked it, took off her clothes, and threatened he would hurt her if she moved his hands before he inserted his penis into her vagina. The mother testified that Camacho was alone in his bedroom with the girl for approximately five to ten minutes.

7 On July 17, 2004, Camacho wanted to have sex with the girl again. The mother testified that Camacho offered her $1,500 for the girl to visit his residence. Camacho explained that if he could have sex with the girl that day, rest the next day, and then have sex with her again the following day, he would give his house and land to the girl.[2]

8 A relative called the Department of Youth Services ("DYS") on July 23, 2004 to report that Camacho sexually abused the girl on July 12 and July 13. Over the next few days, Julian Camacho, a DYS case worker with over ten years of interviewing experience, including over five years with the Child Protection Unit, met with the girl and some of her family members. As a result of his interviews, Julian Camacho believed that Camacho sexually abused the girl on two occasions. As a result, DYS reported the matter to the Department of Public Safety ("DPS"). DPS detective Vince Moreham interviewed the girl and began a criminal investigation based on what he learned from the girl and her mother.