People v. Ainna

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: February 27, 2014
• Docket: CF0304-13
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 F. PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 80304-13 4 Plaintiff.

vs. DECISION AND ORDER

AT T AIC H Y AIN N A,

Defendant.

9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on the Defendant's motion to II di smi ss, fi l ed Au gu st 2 3 , 2 0 1 3 . Oral arguments were heard on December 2, 2013. Assi st ant 12 Attorney General Gabrielle Rossi appeared on behalf of the Government and Assistant Public 13 Defender Suresh Sampath represented the Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, 14 oral arguments, and the applicable lac,. the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND to This case involves an alleged assault where Defendant is accused of attacking Peter n Ngeskebei and Jonathan Leonard Wilson at the 7-Day Supermarket in Dededo on or about June 18 Third Degree 1 , 2013.. On June I 1 , and Felony, two 2013, counts ofwasspecial Defendant indictedallegation f o r two of possession counts and useAssault of Aggravated of deadly nee 19

20 weapon in the commission of a felony. 21 On August 23, 2013, Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment for the failure to 22 submit exculpatory evidence to the grand jury in violation of 8 G C A § 50;46. Defendant argues 23 that the Government. in presenting testimony before the grand jury, misrepresented that: (1) 24 on, a victim, had identified Defendant as the assailant; and (2 ) Mr . Ngeskebei , another 2 5

knew Defendant, having previously caught him stuffing at the store. (Mo t . Di s mi ss, 8 , 2( Aug. 23, 2013). Furthermore, Defendant argues that the Government failed to present thel 27 following facts to the grand jury: (1) conflicting statements of identification of Mr. Wilson and 28 Mr. Ngeskebei; (2) the individual who was actually apprehended several hours later did not

Page I of3 exactly match the description given by either Mr. Wilson or Mr. Ngeskebei; and (3) Defendant was not apprehended immediately after the assault had occurred, but rather was apprehended hours later by police. Id. at 8-9.

DI SCUSSI O N

Title 8 GCA § 50.46 provides that, "[t]he grand jury shall receive only evidence

present ed t o i t by the prosecuting attorney but the prosecuting attorney shal l s ubmi t a ny

evidence in his possession which would tend to negate guilt and the grand jury shall weigh all

8 the evidence submitted." The duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury was

9 adopted from California law, "due to the particularly unilateral ro le of a pros e c utor in the n 1 no nadversary context of grand jury proceedings. Sablan, 1 9 8 6 W L 68900, at *3 (citing

it Johnson v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 248 (1975)). L, Un d er 8 GCA § 50.46, " I t ] he prosecutor's duty consists of fairly presenting all the

13 evidence available; but "ti] reviewing court should uphold an indictment 'if there is some 14 rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused

15 is guilty of it."' People v. Grajo. No. 86-00002, 1987 WL 109393, at *2 (D. Guam App. Div. 16 1987) (emph a s i s i n original) (quoting People v. Ketchel, 59 Cal2d503, 532, 30 Cal.Rptr. 538,

17 553, 381 P.2d 394, 409 (1963), vacated on other grounds, 63 Cal2d 859. 48 Cal.Rptr.614. 409 18 P.2d 694 (1966)); see also 8 (iCA § 50.54(b). 19 Furthermore, the failure to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury is grounds to 20 dismiss an indictment prior to the conclusion of trial, only "if it is established that the violation

21 substantially influenced the grand jury's decision to indict, or if there is grave doubt that the 22 decision to indict was free from substantial influence of such violations." People v. Munn, 9 9 9

23 F.2d 397, 399 (9th CiL 1993) (internal quotations omitt ed) (quoting Bank of Nova Scotia V. 24 United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 2374, 101 L Ed 2d 228 (1988)).

25 In this case, Defendant argues that the i ndi ct ment mu st be dismissed aft er the

26 prosecuting attorney misrepresented facts and failed to present exculpatory information. The 27 alleged misrepresented facts and alleged exculpatory information are based on the information 29 contained in a police report. according to the Defendant. However, the police report is not a

Page 2 of 3 part of the record. Defendant failed to present any such evidence by appending it to an affidavit

or by moving for its admission into evidence during the motion hearing. Without the ability to

examine the police report which contains the statements of the witnesses which are the basis for

Defendants motion , the Court is unable to review the motion on its merits. Fo r this reason,

5 Defendant ' s motion to dismiss is denied.

///

8 /U•

9 CONCLUSION 10 Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant 's motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

13 SO ORDERED this tT day of February, 2014. 14 15

18 HON. JAMES L. CANTO II Judge, Superior Court of Guam 19

,VICE VIA COURTSOX 26 srowle0ge that a copy -e w zV here to NOS pIaun 27

Page 3 of 3