Committee backs rewrite of CNMI sexual-offenses law to expand protections for minors; opponents warn of overbroad language

The House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations on Tuesday voted to advance House Bill 24‑01, House Substitute 1, a comprehensive update to Title 6, Chapter 3 of the Commonwealth Code covering sexual offenses and the assault or abuse of minors.

Supporters said the changes close gaps in existing law and will help prosecutors and victims. Opponents, led by the public defender, warned the measure as drafted risks criminalizing consensual teenage relationships and would admit decades‑old accusations as evidence without adequate judicial gatekeeping.

The bill’s author and House floor leader, Representative Marissa Flores, told the committee the rewrite responds to long‑standing gaps in the law and to recent reporting of cases. “We can’t be telling our kids, do good, be good. Then we come over here and we do the exact opposite, because of politics,” Flores said during floor debate as she urged the panel to move the bill forward.

Why it matters: testimony from prosecutors, child‑protection staff and victim‑advocates described both rising reports and the particular challenges of prosecuting sexual‑abuse cases under the current code. Chester Hines, identified in testimony as the chief prosecutor at the Attorney General’s Office, told the committee HB 24‑01 ‘‘expands protections for minors’’ and ‘‘will help with the prosecution’’ of offenses that are often committed in private and lack corroborating evidence.

Key changes described in testimony

- Age guidelines: The draft raises the baseline protections compared with the existing statute. Hines explained that the substitute draws clearer age ranges (for example, permitting certain close‑in‑age relationships among older teenagers while setting a line that no person 21 or older can be intimate with a child 17 or younger). Hines said the draft moves the baseline age of consent from 13 to 15 in several provisions.

- New offenses: Testimony said the bill adds an unlawful exploitation and voyeurism offense (to criminalize nonconsensual recording and the threat to release recordings) and creates a specific unlawful acts‑with‑a‑student provision to protect students from employees of the educational institution where the offender is employed or contracted.

- Consent and evidence rules: The substitute clarifies consent definitions (consent must be active, can be withdrawn, and must be shown by words or behavior) and includes a provision on admission of other‑act evidence to allow consideration of prior offending at trial.

Public testimony

Child‑welfare and victim‑advocacy witnesses urged passage. Christine Aldon of the Division of Youth Services told the committee that from October 2024 to March 2025 the division received 49 reports of sexual abuse of minors and that the fiscal‑year‑2024 total was 102 such reports. Mariah B. Manglona, child protective services supervisor, described continuing caseloads across Saipan, Tinian and Rota and urged stronger protections for children. Dixie Enos, victim‑witness coordinator in the Office of the Attorney General’s Victim‑Witness Advocacy Unit, called the proposed additions ‘‘critical’’ and urged the committee’s support.

Macy B. Tenorio of the Northern Marianas Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and Kiki Benjamin, associate director of the coalition, also urged passage and emphasized cultural and community barriers to reporting and prosecution.

Opposition and legal concerns

Doug Hardig, the CNMI public defender, objected to several aspects of the draft. He warned that the provision broadening the admission of prior acts could admit decades‑old accusations ‘‘based on nothing’’ and that the bill as written could sweep consensual relationships between near‑age teenagers into criminal liability. ‘‘We’re talking about the 19‑year‑old who has a 15‑year‑old girlfriend…That is not what this bill is about,’’ Hardig said, arguing the bill risks overreach and removes judicial discretion on evidence.

Committee response and change

After extended discussion and public comment, Representative Flores moved a limited set of technical amendments and said stakeholders’ concerns had been incorporated into the draft before the committee. The committee adopted a House Substitute 1 that corrected numbering and removed a factual finding that had referenced ‘‘family members or positions of authority’’ (testimony said those relationships are already addressed elsewhere in statute). The committee then voted to direct staff to prepare a committee report recommending passage of HB 24‑01, HS1, to the full House.

What the committee did not decide

The committee recorded the motions by voice vote; no roll‑call tallies were provided in the hearing. The substitute maintains several contested provisions — notably the expanded admission of prior‑act evidence and the expanded definitions of unlawful conduct — that opponents said could raise fairness and constitutional concerns if left unmodified.

Looking ahead

The committee report will send HB 24‑01, HS1, to the House calendar for a floor vote. Supporters said the bill is urgently needed to close gaps that leave children unprotected; opponents said the concerns they raised are properly resolved either by narrowing statutory language or by judicial interpretation and urged the legislature to reconsider specific language that they said could be overbroad.

Ending note

Committee debate showed strong bipartisan concern for children’s safety, but also a split over statutory scope and how best to protect due‑process rights while broadening legal protections for minors. The committee adopted HS1 and recommended the bill for passage; the full House will now consider the version the committee approved.