The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has denied petitions from former Attorney General Edward T. Buckingham. The court ruled on December 5, 2012, that Buckingham's challenges to the trial court's use of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine were without merit. This ruling affects Buckingham, who is currently outside the jurisdiction and facing criminal charges.
The case originated when the Office of the Public Auditor (OPA) issued a penal summons against Buckingham on August 3, 2012, based on criminal information. Buckingham was supposed to appear in court for arraignment on August 6, 2012, but he left the Commonwealth shortly after being served with the summons. His departure prompted OPA to file additional charges against him, including evasion of service and misuse of public funds.
After Buckingham failed to appear for his arraignment, the trial court issued a $50,000 bench warrant for his arrest. Buckingham later sought to quash the warrant but was denied by the trial court, which cited the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. This doctrine prevents a defendant from utilizing court resources while they are outside the court’s jurisdiction. Buckingham's subsequent motion to reconsider was also denied on the same grounds.
In his petitions to the Supreme Court, Buckingham challenged the trial court's application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. He argued that the trial court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction, that service of process was ineffective, and that the penal summons was inadequate. However, the court found that the only relevant issue was the trial court's use of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro, along with Associate Justice John A. Manglona and Justice Pro Tem Robert C. Naraja, ruled that Buckingham's petitions should be denied. The court stated, "The trial court’s decision that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies in the Commonwealth was not clear error." The court emphasized that Buckingham's absence from the jurisdiction was voluntary and that he had received a summons before leaving.
The ruling clarified that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is recognized in the Commonwealth and serves to maintain the integrity of the court system. The court noted that allowing a fugitive to seek relief would undermine the enforceability of court orders and the justice system itself.
The court also addressed the five-factor test used to determine whether to grant writs of mandamus and prohibition. It concluded that factors one through four weighed against granting Buckingham's petitions. The court found that Buckingham had the means to return and address his claims in court, and his absence was self-imposed.
Looking ahead, this ruling sets a precedent regarding the application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in the Commonwealth. It reinforces the principle that defendants cannot evade legal proceedings by leaving the jurisdiction. This decision may impact future cases involving similar circumstances.
As for Buckingham, he can still appeal this ruling, but the court's decision stands as a significant barrier. The court did not provide information on any related cases pending that might affect this situation.