People v. Akoma

Opinion

r-\r~ s;...;- L) 3UraRlu§j <8@uFlT

QF

2U?'lF?P2 lg $236

CLERK CLERK UF

OF COURT'

COURT'

I

IN THE

THE SUPERIOR

SUPERIOR COURT

COURT OF

OF GUAM

GUAM BY:.,._"""-~----·" M

PEOPLE OF GUAM GUAM Criminal Case No. CM0363-22 GPD GPD Report

Report No.

No. 21-26405

21-26405

vs.

UGOCHUKWU E. AKOMA, DECISION DECISION AND ORDER

(Motion (Motion for

for Mistrial)

Mistrial)

Defendant.

\

isbefore

This matter is before the theHonorable

HonorableAlberto

Alberto E. Tolentino

Tolentino upon

upon the jury

jury trial

trial of

of Ugochukwu

E. Akoma ("Defendant"). Attorney Joaquin Joaquin cC. Arriola, Jr.

Jr. represents Defendant. Assistant represents Defendant. Assistant

Attorneys General Attorneys General Randall Randall Winston

Winston B.

B. Albright,

Albright,Grant

GrantA.

A.Olan,

Olan,and

and Steven

StevenJ.

J. Coaty

Coaty have

have appeared

appeared

on behalf of the People of Guam ("People").

("People"). On

OnApril

April15,

15,2024,

2024,outside

outsidethe

the presence

presence of

of the jury,

Defendant made an oral oralmotion

motion for

for a mistrial.

mistrial. After

Afterhearing

hearingargument

argument from

from both

both parties,

parties, the Court

orally GRANTED the mistrial, mistrial, and

andnow

now issues

issuesthe

thefollowing

following Decision

Decision and Order

Order to

to memorialize

memorialize

its ruling.

ruling.

BACKGROUND

In In 2022, the People 2022, the People charged Defendant Defendant with

with two counts of

of Fourth Degree

Degree Criminal Sexual

Conduct (As a Misdemeanor) Conduct (As againstone Misdemeanor) against onevictim.

victim. Magistrate's.

Magistrate's. Con pl. (Oct. 20, 2022).

Compl. 2022). Jury Jury

selection selection in in this case began and

and concluded

concludedon

onApril

April 8, 2024, and trial

2024, and trial proceeded proceeded on

on April

April 9, 10,

10,

11, 11, 12, and and 15.

15. Throughout

Throughout the trial, evidentiary issues issues have been litigated and relitigated. See, See,

e.g., People's People's Notice Notice of

ofIntent

Intent to

to Use

Use 404(b)

404(b) Evidence at Trial (Apr. 8, 8, 2024),

2024); People's Mot. in

Limine to Limit Limit Void

Voir Dire

Dire and

and Exclude Evidence (Apr. 8, 8, 2024), People's Mot.

2024); People's Mot. Reconsideration Reconsideration

2

of Order of Order Excluding Excluding People's People's Exhibit

Exhibit44and

andTestimony

Testimony... (Apr. 15,

... (Apr. 15, 2024),

2024); People's

People's Mot.

Reconsideration of of Order

Order Excluding

ExcludingTestimony

Testimonyof

of Sergeant

SergeantRoy

RoyHenricksen

Henricksen... (Apr. 15,

... (Apr. 15, 2024),

2024);

see also Entry at also Min. Entry at 4:27:34 4:27:34 PM (Jury

(Jury Trial, April

April 10,

10, 2024)

2024) (evidentiary

(evidentiary chain

chain of

ofcustody

custody

issues); Min. Entry at 10:49:44 issues), 10:49:44 AM (Jury Trial, AM (Jury Trial, April

April11,

11,2024)

2024)(unlisted

(unlisted witness

witness and

and witnesswitness

-

ordering issues) ordering issues)..

On April On 9, 2024, April 9, 2024, the

the People

People of

ofGuam

Guam made

made an

an oral

oral motion

motion for

for aa mistrial

mistrial based

based on the

Court's Court's evidentiary evidentiary rulings, rulings, which Defendant objected to to and

and the

theCourt

Courtultimately

ultimatelydenied.

denied. Min.

Entry at 1:22:41 PM (Jury :22:41 PM (JuryTrial,

Trial, April

April 9, 2024).

2024).

On On April April 15,

15, 2024, madean 2024, Defendant made anoral oralmotion

motionfor

foraamistrial.

mistrial. CitingPeople

People v.

v. Aguon,

2020 Guam Guam24, 24,Defendant

Defendantargued

arguedthat

thathe

thecumulative

cumulativeeffect

effectof

ofthe

thePeople's

People's evidentiary

evidentiary errors

errors had

confused and tainted confused tainted the thejury,

jury, and

andthat

thatunder

underthe circumstances,the thecircumstances, the Court Court cannot

cannot "in-ringthe

"un-ring thebell"

bell"

of ofthe the evidentiary issues with a curative curativeinstruction.

instruction. Min.

Min. Entry

Entry at

at 10:47:00

10:47:00AM

AM (Jury

(JuryTrial,

Trial, Apr.

Apr.

15, 2024). In 15, 2024). Inresponse, response, the

the People

People argued

argued they had already

already elicited

elicited sufficient testimony to meet

the essential essential elements of the charges and and advocated

advocated for

for a curative

curative instruction.

instruction. Id. at

at 10:51 :36AM.

10:51 :36 AM.

After aa short After short recess recess to

to consider

consider the

the issue,

issue, the

the Court

Court first

first asked

asked Defendant

Defendant whether

whether he

consented to to his counsel's request for a mistrial;

mistrial, Defendant indicated his consent.

consent. Id. at

at 11:26:09

11 :26:09

AM. AM. The TheCourt Courthen thengave

gaveboth

bothparties

partiesan

an opportunity

opportunity to

to suggest

suggest feasible alternatives mistrial, alternatives to mistrial;

neither did so. Thereafter, Thereafter,the

theCourt

Courtannounced

announced it

it would

would grant

grant the motion

motion for

for the reasons explained

below. Id.

Id. at at 11:27:07 AM.

11 :27:07 AM.

DISCUSSION

The power power to

to declare

declare aa mistrial

mistrial is

is committed

committed to

to the

the discretion

discretion of

ofthe

the trial

trial court,

court, as

as the trial

court "is "is in in the

the best

best position

position to decide"

decide" whether

whether aa mistrial

mistrial is

is warranted.

warranted. People

People v.

v. Aguon, 2020

24 ,r1]22 Guam 24 (quoting UnitedStates 22 (quoting States v.v.Nace, Nice, 561 763,768

561 F.2d 763, 768(9th

(9thCir.

Cir.1984)).

1984)). Mistrial is "an

3

extraordinary measure extraordinary measurereserved reservedfor

for'plain

'plainand

andobvious

obviouscases."'

cases."' Id. ,r (quoting United Id. 1]27 United States States v.

732 F.2d Gann, 732 714, 725 F.2d 714, 725 (9th Cir.

Cir. 1984)).

1984)). Further,

Further, "[a]

"[a]mistrial

mistrial is

is appropriate

appropriate only where

where aa

cautionary instruction cautionary instructionisisunlikely unlikelyto

to cure

curethe

theprejudicial

prejudicialimpact

impactof

ofthe

theerror."

error." Id. ,r (quoting

Id. 1122

Gann, 732 F.2d Gann, 732 F.2d at at 725).

725). The

The Court believes this

Court believes this is

is aa "plain

"plainand

and obvious"

obvious" case,

case, one

one where

where aa

cautionary instruction cautionary instructionwill will not cure the

the prejudicial

prejudicial impact of the evidentiary errors.

Allcriminal All criminaltrials trialsin

inthe

theSuperior

Superior Court

Court of

ofGuam

Guammust

must be

be conducted

conducted in

in accordance

accordance with

the Guam Rules the Guam Rules of of Evidence.

Evidence. This

Thisensures

ensures a fair

fair trial

trial for

for Defendant

Defendant and

and for the People alike.

alike.

However, at at several several points

points in

in the trial,

trial, the

the People

People ~ave

have not

not complied with these

theserules.

rules. After

After six.

six

days of oftrial, trial,much much courtroom

courtroom time

timehas

has been

been spent

spent addressing

addressing and readdressing the and readdressing the admissibility admissibility

of ofevidence, evidence, and and accordingly the jury has the jury has been

beenseated

seatedfor

forrelatively

relativelyfew

few hours.

hours. And what little

evidence the jury evidence the jury has has received

received has

hasbeen

beenfurther

filrtherdiminished

diminishedby

by valid

valid objections

objections to

to admissibility.

admissibility.

This has compromised the the integrity

integrity of

of the

the case.

case.

A significant significant percentage-in percentage-inDefendant's

Defendant'sestimation,

estimation, more than

thanhalf--of

half-of all

allthe

the testimony

testimony

to date date has has been stricken.

stricken. See

See Min. Entry

Entry at

at 2:32:31

2:32:31 PM

PM (Jury

(Jury Trial, April 9,

9, 2024)

2024) (striking

(striking

victim's testimony); victim's testimony); id.

id. at 2:37:23

2:37:23 PM

PM (same),

(same); Min. Entry 3:23:36 PM Entry at 3:23:36 PM (Jury Trial, Apr. 11, (Jury Trial,

2024) 2024) (striking Sgt. Henricksen's testimony);

testimony), Min. Entry at at4:56:42 PM (Jury Trial, Apr. 12, 2024)

12, 2024)

(striking (striking victim's victim's testimony).

testimony). Several

Several evidentiary exhibits offered evidentiary exhibits offered by the the People

People have

have been

been

excluded or stricken.

stricken. See

See Min.

Min. Entry

Entry at

at3:05:36

3:05:36PM

PM (Jury

(JuryTrial,

Trial,Apr.

Apr. 11,

11,2024)

2024)(People's

(People's Exhibit

2); id id at at 3:10:58 3:10:58 PM (People's

(People's Exhibit 1);

1); Min.

Min. Entry

Entry at

at 4:51:10

4:51 :10 PM

PM (Jury

(Jury Triad,

Trial, Apr. 12,

12, 2024)

2024)

(People's (People'sExhibits Exhibits4A-41).

4A-4I).The

TheCourt

Courthas

hasalso

alsoheard,

heard,and

and denied,

denied, motions

motions for

for reconsideration

reconsideration on

these and other these and otherevidentiary evidentiaryissues.

issues.See

SeeMin.

Min.Entry

Entryatat 11:07:40 AM (Jury :07:40 AM (Jury Trial,

Trial, Apt,}

APP 9, 2024)

2024)

(exclusion (exclusion of ofaudio

audio recording),

recording); Min.

Min. Entry

Entry at

at 10:08:16 AM (Jury Trial, Apr. 15, 10:08:16 AM 15, 2024)

2024) (exclusion

4

of ofSgt.

Sgt. Henricksen's Henricksen's testimony), testimony); id. at 10:43:53 10:43:53AM

AM (exclusion of People's People's Exhibits

Exhibits 11 and 2);

2), id.

at 10:46:27 10:46:27AM AM (exclusion of Guam R. Evid Guam R. Evid 404(b)

404(b) evidence).

The Court Court has

has observed

observed the

the jurors

jurors throughout

throughout the trial and

and has been impressed with their

attentiveness anddiligence. attentiveness and diligence. Many of ofthese takendetailed these jurors have taken detailednotes-and notes-and have

have scrambled

scrambled

to amend time the amend their notes each time the Court has hasinformed

informed them

them that

thatthe

theevidence

evidencethey've

they've just been

exposed to to must play no must play no role in their deliberations.

deliberations. This

This isis particularly

particularly troubling

troubling to the

the Court

Court

because the evidence because the evidence in in question appearedtoto be question appeared be relevant relevant and

and probative,

probative,yet

yet itit needed

needed to

to be

excluded under technical rules under technical rules such suchas

asGuam

GuamR.

R. Evid.

Evid. 802

802 (hearsay)

(hearsay) and

and Guam

Guam R.

R. Evid

Evid 1002

1002

(requirement of original recordings).

recordings). Thus,

Thus,the

the jurors

jurors have

have been

been exposed

exposed repeatedly to evidence repeatedly to

which may be important important to the case

case but which they cannot cannot consider,

consider, for reasons

reasons they may not

understand. understand. This is ultimately prejudicial prejudicial to

to Defendant,

Defendant, as

as there is a distinct possibility that that some

or all of ofthis this stricken

stricken evidence

evidence may

may continue

continue to impact the jury.

jury.

If Ifthere there were

were only

only one

one instance of evidentiary instance of evidentiary error, error, aa curative

curative instruction could potentially

ameliorate the issue.

issue. See

See Aguon,

Aguon, 2020

2020 Guam ,r 29; United States v.v. Charmley, 764 F.2d 675, Guam 241129,

677 (9th Cir. 1985). But But here

here there

there have been multiple instances, acrossaashort instances, across shorttime time:frame.

frame. With

With

deepest respect respect to to the

the jurors,

jurors, the

theCourt

Courtdoes

doesnot

notbelieve

believe a curative instruction would would be

be sufficient

to ''un-ring "in-ring the thebell"

bell"ofofthe

theexcluded

excluded evidence.

evidence. See State v.v.Ayotte, See State Ayotte,776 A.2d715, 715, 718 (N.H. 2001),

2001);

see also also Ulloa v. MeMillin McMillin Real

Real Estate & Mortgage,

Mortgage, Inc., 149

149 Cal. App. 4th 333

333 (Cal.

(Cal. App. 2007)

2007)

(noting (noting the the purpose of aa motion purpose of motion in liming limine is "to

"to avoid

avoid the

the obviously

obviously futile

futile attempt

attempt to

to

'unrig 'unringthe thebell'

bell'ininthe

theevent

eventaamotion

motionto

tostrike

strike is

is granted

granted in the

the proceedings

proceedingsbefore

beforethe

thejury.").

jury."). It

is not fair fair to to the

the jurors

jurors to

to require

require them

them to

to sift

siftthrough

through such

such aa fractured

:fractured evidentiary

evidentiary record to

determine what what they

they may

may consider,

consider, and

andititisisnot

not fair

fair for Defendant to

to face a jury forced

forced into

into that

that

untenable position. Under the untenable position. the circumstances, continuingwith circumstances, continuing with the the trial

trial would be

be incurably

incurably

prejudicial to Defendant, Defendant, and so there

and so there is

is a manifest

manifest necessity

necessity for

for a mistrial.

mistrial.

CONCLUSION

Everyone Everyone involved

involvedin

inthis

this trial

trial isis entitled

entitled to

to aa fair

fairtrial

trial consistent

consistent with

with all

all applicable

applicable court

court

rules. rules. Unfortunately,

Unfortunately, neither

neither the parties

parties nor

northe

thejury

juryhave

havereceived

received that

thatkind

kindof

oftrial.

trial. There is no

curative instruction the

the Court

Courtcan

cangive

give to

to remedy

remedy the

the situation;

situation,the

thebell

bellcannot

cannotbe

beun-rung.

in-rung. Under

these circumstances, the Court finds manifest necessity circumstances, the necessity and and thus

thus GRANTS Defendant's

Defendant's request

request

for mistrial.11 for aa mistriaL

SO ORDERED

ORDEREDthis

this APR APR 1 9 2024

e__---~c;;:=------=::~=--J--=~==-

< \

11

J

l

HONORABLE HONORABLE ALBERTO

ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO

E. TOLENTINO

Judge, Judge, Superior Court of Guam

$&IVI¢£ SERVICEvIA VIA£*F..5'.k E-MAIL

I 1cknowled1e that an elemonlc

'Ji6°~itrii7ui 'Fm °"2i'¢'i"n3"d.IFi

.¢(ha[14 ( %=w-5

lllule1n.1 nw-n

11 The

The parties

parties have

have already

already made oral arguments as to whether whether thethe declaration declaration of

ofmistrial

mistrial requires

requires dismissal

dismissal

of of the case with prejudice, and the issue issue is

is now

now under advisement withwith the the Court.

Court. See

See Min.

Min. Entry

Entry atat 2:13:09

2: 13 :09 PM

PM _-

2:55:57 PM (Jury

(Jury Trial,

Trial, April 15, 2024).

2024). The

The Court

Court will

will decide

decide that

that in aa separate and Order.

separate Decision and Order.

5

r