The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has vacated a lower court’s order finding Guy R. Macaranas in criminal contempt and sentencing him to jail time, primarily because he was denied his constitutional right to counsel during a critical hearing.
The ruling, issued late last month, sends the case back to the trial court for new proceedings. While the Supreme Court found that the evidence presented would have otherwise supported a contempt finding based on violations of a protective order, the failure to ensure Guy had legal representation when incarceration was a possibility constituted a fundamental due process violation.
Custody Battle Leads to Contempt Charge
The saga began in June 2023 when Nao O. Macaranas obtained an order of protection against her then-husband, Guy. Initially, Guy had physical custody of their children with Nao having visitation rights. However, the order was modified in November 2023, transferring custody to Nao, while Guy received visitation. The order strictly limited their telephone communications to matters concerning the children’s welfare and visitation.
In February 2024, Nao alleged that Guy had violated this order through a series of text messages containing derogatory language and directives outside the scope of visitation terms. She also accused him of failing to pay required child support.
The trial court responded by issuing an order for Guy to show cause why he shouldn’t be held in contempt, scheduling a hearing for March 5. Crucially, the court advised Guy that the proceeding could lead to jail time and informed him of his right to consult an attorney, noting that counsel could be appointed if he couldn’t afford one.
The Critical March 5 Hearing
At the initial contempt hearing on March 5, Guy appeared without a lawyer. The court heard testimony from him and reviewed the disputed text messages. The court then postponed the hearing until March 13 and appointed counsel for Guy.
However, the case took several twists. The parties agreed to cancel the March 13 hearing after Guy made a child support payment and the protective order was slightly modified regarding child drop-offs. But when Guy subsequently fell behind on support payments again and was arrested for failing to return the children on time, Nao requested the contempt hearing be reinstated. The court scheduled the final hearing for May 20.
It was based on evidence from both the March 5 (uncounseled) and May 20 hearings that the court found Guy in criminal contempt, imposing a seven-day jail sentence, with five days suspended. Guy served the resulting two-day jail term immediately and appealed the finding.
Appeal Not Moot Despite Served Sentence
The Supreme Court first addressed the argument from Nao that the appeal was moot because the protective order had expired and Guy had already served most of his sentence. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the appeal remained a “live controversy.”
The Court cited precedent indicating that a contempt finding carries significant “collateral consequences.” Even if the jail time is complete, a finding of contempt—especially one related to a protective order—can negatively influence future custody and visitation determinations in ongoing family law matters. Vacating the order, the Court reasoned, would remove an adverse record that could harm Guy’s future parental rights.
Right to Counsel Attached at the First Hearing
The main issue centered on Guy’s constitutional right to counsel. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to counsel in criminal proceedings, where the risk of incarceration exists, is a bedrock of due process under both CNMI and U.S. constitutional law.
The critical question was *when* this right attached. The Court determined that the right attaches at any “critical stage” of a proceeding—one where the absence of counsel risks substantial harm or undermines fairness.
The March 5 hearing was deemed such a critical stage. At this hearing, Nao’s counsel cross-examined Guy and introduced evidence (the texts and testimony regarding his employment) that formed the basis for the eventual contempt finding. Because Guy faced imprisonment and was unrepresented, his right to counsel was triggered.
The Court noted that Guy did not waive this right. While Nao argued Guy forfeited the claim by not objecting once counsel was appointed later, the Court found exceptions applied because the issue was a pure question of law based on an undisputed record (Guy was unrepresented at the initial evidence-gathering stage). Furthermore, proceeding without counsel when incarceration is possible constitutes “plain error” affecting substantial rights.
“Because Guy had a right to counsel at the March 5 hearing and because the presence of counsel would affect the evidence entered against Guy, the violation alone would warrant vacatur,” the opinion stated.
Factual Findings Upheld (Mostly)
Although the constitutional error required vacating the contempt order, the Supreme Court reviewed the underlying factual findings to provide clarity. The Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on three key points:
1. Chances to Avoid Contempt: The record supported the trial court’s view that Guy had been given multiple warnings and opportunities to comply before sanctions were imposed.
2. “Mental Games”: Evidence from the text messages—where Guy used belittling language and attempted to manipulate visitation terms—supported the trial judge’s characterization of his behavior.
3. Communication Violations: Text messages calling Nao “lazy” and “brain dead” clearly exceeded the permissible scope of contact allowed under the protective order.
However, the Court found one factual finding erroneous: that Guy *willfully* failed to pay child support. While Guy did fall behind, the record showed he had also stopped paying other financial obligations, like car payments, suggesting an inability to pay rather than a deliberate choice to prioritize discretionary spending over support.
Despite this error regarding child support, the Court deemed it “harmless error” because the contempt finding was sufficiently supported by the independent violations concerning the text messages and visitation interference.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the constitutional flaw outweighed the factual sufficiency. Because Guy was subjected to a criminal contempt finding resulting in incarceration based on evidence gathered when he was unrepresented during a critical adversarial stage, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and ordered the case remanded for new proceedings where Guy’s due process rights are respected.