Supreme Court Rules Defendant is Entitled to Counsel

---

Saipan, CNMI – The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Macaranas v. Macaranas, reversing the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt due to a violation of the defendant’s constitutional due process right to counsel. The charge of contempt arose from a violation of an order of protection.  

The trial court held Guy Macaranas in criminal contempt after he failed to make child support payments, made contact with Nao Macaranas outside the scope allowed by the order of protection against him, and failed to return his children on time after visitation. It sentenced Guy to seven days in prison, five of which were suspended. Guy appealed, arguing that the trial court had abused its discretion in making various findings of fact and that it had violated his constitutional right to counsel by relying on evidence submitted to the court when he was unrepresented.  

The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion. To find abuse of discretion for factual determinations requires clear error. Here, there was no clear error as the record showed evidentiary support for all the factual findings Guy challenged. 

The Supreme Court held the finding of contempt violated Guy’s constitutional right to counsel by utilizing evidence received during a hearing where he was unrepresented and had not waived his right to counsel. The hearing represented a critical stage of the proceedings because Guy faced adversarial questioning and suffered substantial prejudice to his case. 

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

The full opinion can be read on the Law Revision Commission website: https://www.cnmilaw.org/pdf/supreme/2025-MP-13.pdf 

2025-PR-028

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 22, 2025

This press release has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the public. For further information, contact the Supreme Court at Supreme.Court@NMIJudiciary.gov