E E* l ELERK OF COURT 2 2025 APR 2Q85 PM J: g9% -9 PH 59 8 5g Fl .. :**; F 1>~\~. .!*,r*6 3 ?" G! 2 5. 43:1 *Zh* .° §"'a5"if 4
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 6 ) CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE CASENO. NO. CM0363-22 CM0363-22 7 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, )) GPD Report ReportNo. No.21 -26405 21-26405 ) 8 vs. ) ) 9 ) DECISION DECISION & ORDER ) RE. PEOPLE'S PEOPLE'S MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS 10 10 UGOCHUKWU ENYINNAYA UGOCHUKWUENYINNAYAAKOMA, WITHOUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE PREJUDICE IN THE ) DOB: DOB:02/28/1972 02/28/1972 INTEREST INTEREST OF OF JUSTICE 111 1 ) ) 12 12 ) ________________ Defendant. Defendant. ) ) 13 13
14 14 This matter came came before before the the Honorable Honorable Alberto E. E. Tolentino Tolentinoon onJanuary January 9, 2025, 2025, for aa 15 15 Status Hearing. Defendant Status Hearing. DefendantUgochukwu UgochukwuEnyinnaya EnyinnayaAkoma Aroma ("Defendant") ("Defendant") was was present present with 16 16 counsel counsel Attorney Joaquin Arriola Jr. Joaquin Arriola Jr. Assistant Attorney General General Grant Grant Olen Olan was present for the 17 17
18 18 People of of Guam ("People"). The Guam ("People"). ThePeople Peoplepreviously previouslyfiled fileda aMemorandum MemorandumSupporting Supporting the People
19 of Guam's Guam's Motion Motion toto Dismiss DismissWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudice on onDecember December 10, 10, 2024. 2024. During During the the Status Status 20 20 Hearing, the court addressed addressedthe thePeople's People's Motion Motion and and ultimately sue sua sponge sponte dismissed the case. 21 As to As to the the issue issue of ofwhether whether to todismiss dismiss this case with this case withprejudice, prejudice, the the court court took took the the matter matter under under 22 advisement pursuantotoSupreme advisement pursuant Supreme Court Court ofofGuam Guam Administrative Administrative Rule Rule 06-001, 06-001, 7.l(e)(6)(A) CVR7.l(e)(6)(A) CVR 23 23
24 24 and CR 1.1 of the Local 1.1 of ofthe Rules of Local Rules the Superior Superior Court Court of ofGuam. Guam. Having Having duly duly considered consideredthe the parties parties'
25 25 briefings, briefings, oral oral arguments, arguments, and the the applicable applicable law, the the court court now issues Decision and issues this Decision and Order 26 26 DENYING DENYINGthe thePeople's People'sMotion MotiontotoDismiss Dismisswithout without Prejudice. Prejudice. 27 \\ 28
Decision Decision &&Order Order Re. Re. People's People's Motion MotiontotoDismiss DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page l of Page 1 of 13 13 1
BACKGROUND 1
2 2022, Defendant On October 20, 2022, Defendant Akoma was charged Aroma was charged with two counts counts of Fourth Degree of Fourth
3 Criminal Sexual Conduct Conduct (As (As a Misdemeanor). See Magistrate's Con Compl. (Oct. (Oct. 20, 20, 2022). 2022). During During 4 Arraignment on November 1, his Arraignment 1, 2022, 2022, the the Defendant Defendant waived speedy trial. waived his right to speedy trial. See See 5 Arraign. H'rg Arraign. H'rg Mims. Mins. (Nov. 1, 1, 2022). 2022). On On February February 13, 13, 2023, 2023, the the Defendant Defendantfiled filed aa Motion Motion to 6
7 Extend Time, which the People did Extend did not not oppose. oppose. The The court court allowed allowed the the parties parties more more time to
8 appropriately respond respond to to the themotions motionsbeing beingfiled. filed.
9 Events Leading Up to Trial A. Events 10 10 14, 2023, On April 14, 2023, the the Defendant Defendantfiled filed two two Motions in Liming Guam Rule Limine to exclude Guam Rule of of 11 ("G.R.E.")404(b) Evidence ("G.R.E.") 404(b)and and413 413evidence, evidence,and and hearsay evidence. 1 On April hearsay evidence April 17, 17, 2023, 2023, the the 12 12
13 13 People subsequently filed People subsequently Notice oflntent itsNotice filed its Intent to toAdmit Admit 413 413Evidence. SeePpl. Evidence.See 's Notice Ppl.'s Notice (Apr. 17, 17,
14 14 2023). On On June 22, 2023, June 22, 2023, the the court court held held an anevidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing on on the the Defendant's Defendant's Motions Motions in
1155 Liming and the Limine and the People's Notice. Notice. After Afterhearing hearingthe theparties' parties'argument, argument, the the court court took took the the matter matter 16 16 under advisement under advisement and and subsequently subsequentlyissued issuedits itsDecision Decision and and Order Order excluding excluding the the admission admission of 17 17 G.R.E. 413 G.R.E. 413 evidence. evidence. See Decisionand See Decision andOrder Order O\Iov. (Nov. 13, 2023). 18 18
19 19 January 30, On January 30,2024, 2024,the theDefendant Defendantfiled Statement asserting filed a Statement assertinghis hisright right to to speedy speedy trial.
20 Statement (Jan. See Statement (Jan. 30, 30, 2024). 2024). Upon his assertion, assertion, the court scheduled scheduled Jury Jury Selection Selection and and Trial Trial 21 for March March 25, 25, 2024, 2024, in in accordance accordance with the the mandated sixty-day speedy mandated sixty-day speedy trial trial time time frame frame for 22 Defendants 2See released Defendants. SeeAmended AmendedCriminal CriminalTrial TrialScheduling SchedulingOrder Order(Jan. (Jan.31, 31,2024). 2024). At AtaaFurther Further 23 23 24 Proceedings on February 20, 2024, the Defendant requested the court requested the court to extend this case's Jury 24
25 and Trial date Selection and date to 8, 2024. to April 8, 2024. See Further Proceedings See Further ProceedingsMins. Mims.atat10:43:24AM l0:43:24AM (Feb.
26 26
27 27 11 See Mot. in Limine See Mot. Liming to Exclude Hearsay (Apr. 14, 2023); Mot. in Limine 14, 2023), 413 Evidence Liming to Exclude GRE 404(B) and413 Evidence (Apr. 14, 2023). 28 28 2 G.C.A. §§ 80.60(a)(3), Under 88 G.C.A. Under 80.60(a)(3), tnlal for aa released trial for released defendant must commence defendant must commence within within sixty (60) days sixty (60) days after after arraignment.
Decision &&Order Decision OrderRe. Re. People's People's Motion MotiontotoDismiss DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice , People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page Page 2 of of 13 13 20, 2024). 20, 2024). The Defendant expressed expressed his his willingness willingness to to waive his right to speedy speedy trial trial until until the the 1
2 2 Conference on April Pre-Trial Conference April 3, 3, 2024. Id With 2024. Id Withtwenty-one twenty-one(21) (21)days dayshaving havinglapsed lapsed since since the the
3 assertion, the Defendant's assertion, the court court granted grantedthe thecontinuance continuanceof ofJury JurySelection Selectionand andTrial Trialto toApril April 8, II
4 . . . . . 2024; leaving thirty-nlne 2024, thirty-nine (39) days remaining remaining on the the clock. clock. Id. Id 5 response to In response to the the People's People's Notice Notice of Intent Intent to 404(b) Evidence to Use 404(b) Evidence at at Trial Trial filed on on 6
7 February 29, 29, 2024, 2024,the theDefendant Defendantfiled filed his his Motion Motion in Liming on March Limine to Exclude that evidence on 7
8 8 27, 2024. 2024. On OnApril 2024, the April 3, 2024, the court courtheld heldaaPre-Trial Pre-Trial Conference, Conference, which was continued continuedto to April April
9 5, 2024. 10 10 continued Pre-Trial Conference held During the continued held on April5,5,2024, on April 2024, the the court court granted granted the 11 11 Defendant's Motion in Limine, without opposition from the Defendant's the People and and subject to evidentiary 12 12
13 13 objections presented objections presentedatattrial. SeePre-Trial trial.See Pre-TrialConference ConferenceMins. Mins.atat2:2:l9:26PM 19:26PM (Apr. 5, 5, 2024). 2024). In
14 14 addition, the People filed its addition, the its Third Third Amended Amended Exhibit Exhibit List, List, which which included included recordings recordings that that were 15 15 turned over to the turned over the Defendant Defendant that that morning. morning. In his his argument that this argument that this exhibit list was was untimely 16 16 filed, filed, the the Defendant Defendant requested requested that the the evidence that was untimely untimely disclosed be excluded at trial. 17 17 is Id. After Afterhearing hearing the the parties' parties' argument argument on on the issue of the recent disclosures disclosures within within the the People's People's 18
19 19 Third Amended Exhibit List, the the court court denied denied its its admission admission in the People's People's case-in-chief case-in-chief but but
20 20 permitted its admission on on rebuttal rebuttalsubject subj etto to the theDefendant's Defendant's introduction of of that that evidence. evidence. Id. Id. 21 B. Jury JurySelection Selection and and Trial Trialbeginning beginning on on April April8, 8, 2024 2024 22 Jury trial Jury trial in in this this case caseoccurred occurredbetween betweenApril April 8, 2024, 2024, through throughApril April 15, 2024.However, 15, 2024. However, 23 23 24 on April April15, 15, 2024, 2024, the Defendant made an oral oral motion to dismiss and and an anoral oralmotion motionfor for mistrial. 24
25 25 See generally See Jury Trial generally Jury Trial Mins. Mims.(Apr. (Apr. 15, 15, 2024). 2024). That That same sameday, day,the thePeople Peoplefiled filed aa Motion Motion for
26 26 Reconsideration regarding the court's exclusion of oftestimony testimony at at trial. See Ppl. 's's Mot. Reconsider 27 27 (Apr. 15, 15, 2024). 2024). After After hearing hearing the the parties' parties' argument argument on on the the motions, motions, the the court court denied denied 28
Decision Decision &&Order OrderRe. Re. People's People's Motion MotiontotoDismiss DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page Page 3 of of 13 13 reconsideration, theDefendant's grantedthe reconsideration, granted Motion for Defendant'sMotion and took the for Mistrial, and Defendant's Motion the Defendant's 1
2 to Dismiss under underadvisement. advisement.Jury JulyTrial Trial(Day (Day6) 6)Mins.@ 10:08:16 -45:13AM Mins. @ 10:08:16 (Apr. 15, - 45:13AM (Apr. 2024); 15, 2024),
3 15, 2024). (Apr. 15, 2:55:32- 55:56PM. (Apr. Mins. at 2:55:32 H'rgMims. Mot. H'rg 4 On April April 19, 2024, the court issued its Decision 19, 2024, granting the and Order granting Decision and Defendant's oral the Defendant's 5 motion for mistrial. Decision and See Decision mistrial. See Order(Motion andOrder for Mistrial) (Motion for 19, 2024). Mistrial) (Apr. 19, the 2024). As to the 6 7 Defendant's Defendant's oral oral motion motion to dismiss, the court denied it for to dismiss, reasons set forth in its Decision for reasons and Decision and 7
8 Order filed filed on on July July 15, 15, 2024. See Decision 2024. See Decision and andOrder Order(Motion (Motion to Dismiss) (July 15, 2024). (July 15,
9 C. Events Events Leading Leading Up Up to to the the Retrial 10 10 During a Pre-Trial Pre-TrialConference Conferenceon onJuly July16, 16,2024, 2024, the the court court set set this this matter continued for aa continued matter for 11 11 Pre-Trial Conference on Pre-Trial Conference July 18, on July 2024, and 18, 2024, Jury Selection and Jury and Trial Selection and July 19. Trial for July the 19. However, the 12 12
113 People filed filed two two Notices NoticesofofAppeal Appealwith withthe theSupreme Court of SupremeCourt Guam the ofGuam the Pre-Trial the day after the
14 14 Conference. The The People's People'sfirst firstappeal appealwas was based based on on the the court's court's Decision Decisionand and Order Order granting granting the 15 15 Defendant's oral oral motion for for mistrial. mistrial. See SeeNotice (July 17, Notice of Appeal (CRA24-016) (July 2024). The 17, 2024). 16 16 second appeal appeal was was in regards regards to to the the court's Decision and and Order denying the Defendant's oral 17 17 18 motion motion to dismiss with prejudice. dismiss with prejudice.See SeeNotice Noticeof Appeal (CRA24-015) (July of Appeal 17, 2024). (July 17, 18
19 19 The coin courtand andthe the parties parties acknowledged acknowledged the the filing filingofofboth bothappeals appeals during during the the continued continued
20 20 Pre-Trial Pre-TrialConference Conferenceon onJuly July18, 18, 2024. 2024. Although Although the the court court initially initiallystated stated that no longer retained that it no 21 21 jurisdiction in this case until the appeals appeals were resolved, resolved, the the court court was was also also made made aware aware that that the 22 appeals had hadnot notbeen beenperfected perfected at atthe thetime timebased basedononthe theDefendant's Defendant'srepresentations. representations.See SeePre-Trial Pre-Trial 23 23 24 Conference ConferenceMims. Mins. at at 4:06:33 -23:53PM 23:53PM (July (July 18, 18, 2024). 2024). Pursuant to the Pursuant to theDefendant's Defendant's oral motion 24
25 25 to proceed with with trial as as scheduled, the court scheduled, the courtgranted grantedthe themotion motionpending pendingthe thePeople's People's perfection perfection
26 26 of oftheir their appeals. Id. appeals. Id. 27
28 28
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People'sMotion MotiontotoDismiss DismissWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 CM0363-22 Page 4 of of 13 13 of trial, On the day of trial, the the People People filed filed its its Notice Notice of Divestiture Divestiture regarding regarding the the court's coult's order to 1
22 move forward move forward with with Jury Jury Selection Selection and and Trial Trial on on July July 19, 19, 2024, unless the People perfect perfect its appeal
33 before then. See Notice et ofDivestiture Divestiture (July (July 19, 19, 2024). That same day, the People filed a Statement Statement 4 . . . . . . . I of of Objectlon Objection under under 7 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§6107 6107 and and Motlon MotiontotoDlsquallfy Disqualify("Statement ("StatementofofOb]ect1on") Objection") thls this 5 court. Because court. Because of this, this, the the matter was was assigned assigned to the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III as 6 7 recusaljudge. judge. See Notice of Assignment (July 30, 2024). Assignment (July 7
8 While the court was without jurisdiction jurisdiction in in this this case case due due to the People's appeals appeals and 9 of Objection, the People filed Statement of filed aa Motion Motion for for Written Written Orders Orders on on July July 29, 2024. 3 This 29, 2024.3 10 10 court also also issued issued its its Answer to to the Statement of Objection Objection that same day. In response response to the 11 11 People's Motion People's Motionfor for Written Written Orders, Orders, the Defendant Defendant filed filed his his Opposition Opposition on on August August 1, 1, 2024. 12 12
13 13 ds too the PPeople's In rregards eop aappeall of of tthe court's he cou Decision aand Or r t 's Decis Order denying tthe der denying
14 dismiss, the Guam Supreme Defendant's oral motion to dismiss, Supreme Court Court granted the People's request request to 15 15 withdraw such appeal and dismissed it without prejudice. See Judgment (CRA24-016) (Aug. 12, 12, 16 16 2024). 17 17 Response to this The People filed its Response this court's Answer to the Statement of Objection on Statement of 18 18
19 19 August 14, 2024. 4 On 14, 2024.4 On August 29, 2024, the Honorable Albelto the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III issued his
20 20 Decision and Order denying the Office of the the Attorney General General of of Guam's ("OAG") Statement Statement 21 of Objection and Motion to of to Disqualify. See Decision and Order Order (Aug. 29, 2024). On September 22 24, 2024, the People filed filed aa Memorandum Memorandum regarding regarding the the status status of of the the remaining remaining appeal appeal of of this this 23 24 24 court's Decision court's Decision and and Order Order granting the Defendant's oral motion Defendant's oral motion for for mistrial.
27 3 While the People 3 While the People filed an CVR 7.1 7.1 Form regarding regarding Ex Ex Parte Parte Relief Reliefon onthis this motion, motion, the the court court was was still still without without 28 28 jurisdiction to entertain it. jurisdiction it. 4 The 4 The People also tiled filed an an Amended Amended Response later that thatday. day.See SeeAmended AmendedPpl's Ppl's Response Response (Aug. (Aug. 14, 14, 2024).
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People'sMotion MotiontotoDismiss DismissWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. Aroma, Akoma, CM0363-22 Page 5 of of 13 13 On November November 21, 2024, the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court issued issued aaJudgment Judgment denying denying the the People's People's 1
2 appellate Motion for Limited Remand, and dismissing the appellate the appeal. appeal. See Judgment Judgment (CRA24-015) (CRA24-015)
3 (Nov. 21, 2024). 2024). Accompanying Accompanying the Judgment Judgment was the Guam Supreme Court's Order conveying 4 the reasons for the denial and dismissal. See Order (CRA24-015) (Nov. 21, 2024). 5 D. D. Dismissal Dismissalof ofthe the Case Case 6
On December December 10, 10, 2024, the the People People filed a Memorandum Supporting People of Supporting People of Guam's 7
8 Motion to Dismiss without Motion in the Interest without Prejudice in Interest of of Justice ("Motion to Dismiss"). The court 9 held held a Status Hearing Hearing on December December 19, heard arguments on the Motion to Dismiss. 19, 2024, where it heard Dismiss. 10 Ultimately, the Ultimately, the court court dismissed dismissed this this case against the Defendant Defendant and and allowed allowed the the parties parties to file their 111
respective briefs on the issue respective briefs issue of of dismissal dismissal with with or or without without prejudice. prejudice. The The court court subsequently subsequently 12 12
13 issued its Order of Dismissal that that same same day. day. The The Defendant filed his Response to the Motion to
14 14 Dismiss ("Response") on on December December 26, 2024. 5 The People then filed its Reply to the Response 26, 2024.5 15 15 December 31, on December 2024. 6 31, 2024.6 16 16 On January 9, 2025, 2025, the the court court held held a Status Status Hearing Hearing where where it addressed addressed the parties' briefs 17 17 on the issue of of dismissal with prejudice. After hearing the parties' argument, the court took the 18
19 19 matter under advisement.
20 \\ 21 \\ 22
24 55 Although Although the Notice Notice of Motion scheduled the Opposition Brief Brief due date for December December 24, 2024, the Superior Court of of Guam Guam waswas closed closed due due to to the the Christmas Eve holiday. Guam Rule of of Civil Procedure ("GRCP") Rule 6(a)(l)(C) 25 states that"[ "[w]hen the period is stated in in days days or a longer unit ofof time... ... include include the the last last day day of ofthe the period, period, but but ifif itit is a Saturday, a Sunday, a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing filing of a paper in court, a day on which 26 26 weather weather oror other conditions have made made the office office of of the clerk clerk of of the Superior Court Court inaccessible, the period continues to runs until the end of the next day which is until the is not not one one of ofthe the aforementioned aforementioned days." days." Therefore, Therefore, the Defendant's 27 27 Response was timely filed.filed. 66 Although Although thethe Notice Notice of Motion scheduled the Reply Brief Brief due date for December December 21, 21, 2024, the court recognizes 28 28 clerical error this as a clerical error meant meant toto read read as as "December "December 31,l, 2024" 2024" when when considering that the Reply Reply Brief would have been due before the Opposition Brief. Therefore, Therefore, the the People's People's Reply was timely filed.
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People'sMotion MotiontotoDismiss DismissWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page 6 of of 13 13 DISCUSSION l
2 2 A. A. Defendant DefendantAkoma's Akoma'sStatutory StatutoryRight Rightto toSpeedy Speedy Trial Trial was was violated under 88 G.C.A. violated under G.C.A. §§ 80.60. 3
Without ruling on the issue of Without of prejudice, the court sue sua sponge sponte dismissed dismissed this this case pursuant 4
5 to 8 GCA to 8 80.60 and GCA §§ 80.60 and alternatively alternatively 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.70(b). 80.70(b). Pursuant Pursuant to to 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.60, the court 80.60, the court shall shall
6 dismiss a criminal action for failure failure to to commence commence trial trial of of a defendant defendant within within sixty sixty (60) (60) days after 7 arraignment unless there is good cause for failure failure to to commence commence the trial within the sixty-day time 8 frame. Under 88 GCA frame. Under GCA §§ 80.70(b), "[i]fthere is 80.70(b), "[i]fthere is unnecessary unnecessary delay delay in in bringing bringing aa defendant defendant to to trial, trial, 9
10 on its the court, on its own own motion, motion, may may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint." ea
11 II In its Reply, the People People argue argue that that under under the the Guam GuamSupreme SupremeCou1"t's Court's Ruling in People v, v. 12 Gutierrez, Gutierrez, "the basis basis of of dismissal dismissal with prejudice prejudice cannot cannot be satisfied." satisfied." Ppl.'s Ppl. Reply (Dec. (Dec. 31, 31, 13 2024). They specifically cited to to the the holding in Gutierrez that trial trial courts are are not authorized "to 14
sua sponge sue sponte dismiss indictments indictments with with prejudice." People prejudice." Peopl v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 e v. 19129. 1]29. While While 15 15
16 16 the People the People sta te tha state that this this count court dismissed this case's compla dismissed this complaint with pr ejudice without prejudice without a
17 subsequent complaint being subsequent complaint being filed, filed, this this is is not the case. case. In In its its Order Order for for Dismissal, Dismissal, the the court court 18 dismissed dismissed this this case from the bench but reserved its ruling on prejudice until both parties submitted submitted 19 19 the issue. briefs on the issue. See Dismissal (Dec. 19, See Order for Dismissal 19, 2024). 2024). Therefore, Therefore, the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme 20 Court's ruling in Gutierrez does not apply in this case. 21
22 Regarding Regarding the failure to commence commence this retrial within the remaining time left on the speedy speedy
23 trial clock, clock, the the court court found found no no good cause for why this trial this case case was was not not brought brought to to retrial retrial within 24 . . . . o . . whatever time remained whatever time remained on on the speedy trial trial clock. Among Amongits its reasons reasons for for dismissing dismissing the the case, case, the 25 court found unnecessary delay in bringing the Defendant's Defendant's case case to to retrial retrial after the People waited 26
27 until the day of of the the retrial retrial to file its Statement of of Objection Objection against against this court, court; and after it had 27
28 already filed two Notices of Appeal on the previous day.
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People'sMotion MotiontotoDismiss DismissWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. Akoma, CM0363-22 Page 7 of of 13 13 The Guam Guam Supreme Court acknowledged Supreme Court acknowledged that that delays delays for for the the benefit of of the the defendant defendant 1
2 constitute as good constitute as cause for good cause for speedy speedy trial trial purposes, purposes, such suchas astolling tolling of of the the speedy speedy trial trial clock. See
3 Ungacta v. v. Superior Superior Court of of Guam, Guam, 2013 Guam 29 (arguing that, "delays "delays caused by, or for the caused by, 4 4 benefit benefit of ofthe the defendant defendant constitute constitute good good cause for for speedy speedy trial trial purposes."). purposes."). Because Because the the Statement Statement 5 of ofObjection Objection is is not not a motion filed filed for for the the Defendant's Defendant's benefit, benefit, the the time would would not have been tolled tolled 6
7 pending the Decision Decision and Order on onthe theStatement Statementof of Objection. Objection. When the the Statement Statementof of Objection Objection
8 8 was filed, there there was still time time remaining remaining on the Defendant's speedy trial trial clock to bring a retrial.
9 9 However, However, the the Decision Decision and Order Order Denying Denying the theOAG's OAG's Statement of Objection was Statement of was filed filed nine nine (9) (9) 10 10 days after the the Defendant's speedy trial clock clock already already expired. expired. Because Because of of this, this, speedy speedy trial was 11 1
violated under violated G.C.A. §§ 80.60. under 8 G.C.A. 80.60. The The court court will willnow nowexplicate itsreasons explicateits to dismiss reasons to dismiss this this case with case with 12 12
13 13 prejudice. prejudice.
14 B. The TheFederal FederalSpeedy SpeedyTrial TrialAct ActFactors Factorsweigh weighin in favor favor of ofdismissal dismissal with prejudice. 15 Where a defendant's statutoryright defendant's statutory righttotospeedy speedytrial trialisisviolated, violated, "[t]he "[t]he issue issue of of whether whether the 16 16 case should be be dismissed dismissed with with or without prejudice should be decided in the first instance by the 17 17 18 trial court." court." People Peoplev. Corpuz, 2019 Guam 1, ,r1118 v. Corpuz, (quotingNicholson 18 (quoting Nicholson v. Superior Court (People), v. Superior (People), 18
19 19 2007 Guam 99 ,r1]29) 2007 Guam 29)(Mar. (Mar. 22, 22, 2019). 2019). While the the Guam Guam Supreme has "never Supreme Court has "never ruled that that aa
20 speedy trial violation violationrequires requires an an automatic dismissal dismissal with prejudice... ... Guam's Guam's speedy 20 speedy trial trial statute statute 21 does not contain aa default defaultpresumption presumptionone oneway wayor orthe theother-making other-making both both available to the trial 22 22 cou1"r." Id (quoting court." Id. Aron in, 2014 (quotingPeople v.v. Aromin, 2014 Guam Guam 33 111114, 20-21,see ,r,r 14, 20-21; see also8 8GCA also GCA§§80.60 80.60(2005)). (2005)). 23
The Guam Guam Supreme Court has has further further held held that thatthe the trial trial courts must mustconsider considerthe thefederal federal Speedy 24
25 Trial Act Actfactors factors when when determining determining whether whether to to dismiss dismiss aa case with or without prejudice. Aron in, Aromin, 26 26 2014 Guam 3, ,r 21. Gu3m3,1121. 27 27
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People's Motion MotiontotoDismiss DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People People v. v. Akoma, Akoma, CM0363-22 CM0363-22 Page 8 of of 13 13 i
The federal federal Speedy Speedy Trial Act Actrequires requires the the court consider the following factors to consider court to and factors and 1
2 2 determine whetherthey determine whether in favor weigh in theyweigh dismissal with prejudice favor of dismissal in this prejudice in case: "(1) this case: the "(1) the
3 seriousness of the seriousness of the offense; offense, (2) (2)the the facts facts and dismissal; circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal, and circumstances 4 . . . . . . . the impact of aa reprosecutlon and (3) the of the reprosecution of administrationof the administration Aromin, 2014 Guam justice." Aron ofjustlce." ,i Guam 33 1] 5 21. 6
7 (1) The TheSeriousness of the Offense Seriousness of
8 When analyzing whether the seriousnessof the seriousness of the the offense favors dismissal dismissal with prejudice,
9 9 the trial court's court's interpretation recognizes that interpretation recognizes that "the "the more more serious the offense, serious the offense, the the more more weight
10 should be given to dismissal without prejudice." dismissal without Aromin, prejudice." Aron ,i (citing in, 1]23 (citing United 25 Clymer, 25 v. Clymer, States v. UnitedStates 111
F.3d 824, 831 F.3d Cir. 1994)). "[W]here 831 (9th Cir. crimecharged thecrime "[W]here the serious, the chargedisisserious, sanction of the sanction dismissal of dismissal 12 12
13 13 with prejudice should should ordinarily ordinarily be be imposed imposedonly only for for serious serious delay." delay."Corpuz, ,i 24 (quoting Corpuz, 2019 1124 (quoting
14 14 Simmons, 786 F.2d 479,485 v. Simmons, States v. United States United (ad Cir. 1986)). 485 (2d
15 15 By example example and and comparison comparison to to felony felonycharges, charges, misdemeanor misdemeanor charges charges are are generally generally 16 16 deemed less serious. serious. For instance, the nature instance, the of an nature of an assault may be more serious assault may serious than than a theft 17 17 because of the bodily bodily injury. injury.But Butanother another may may view viewthe thepunishments punishments available availablefor foran an assault assault versus 18 18
19 19 a theft as as a stronger indicator of aa charge's charge's seriousness. seriousness. In In this this case, case, the Defendant Defendant is charged charged
20 with two counts of with of Fourth FourthDegree Degree Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct Conduct(As (As a Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). For For this thisoffense, offense, 21 the Defendant faced no Defendant faced no more more than than one one ((1) 1) year of ofincarceration incarceration and maximum fine and a maximum fine of one one 22 7 thousand dollars ($1,000). thousand dollars ($1,000).7 Sincethe Since thefiling filing of of the the Magistrate's was before this matter was Magistrate's Complaint, this before 23 23 24 the court for approximately three (3) years years before beforethe thecourt court dismissed dismissed itit on on the the bench. bench. 24
25 25
28 28 7 7 See 99G.C.A. See G.C.A. § 25.30(b), 25.30(b); see also 9 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ §§ 80.34 80.34 & 80.50. 80.50.
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People'sMotion MotiontotoDismiss DismissWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudicein inthe the Interest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. Aroma, Akoma, CM0363-22 CM0363-22 Page9 of of13 13 After evaluating After evaluating the the seriousness seriousness of of this this misdemeanor misdemeanor charge, charge, the court agrees with the 1
2 thatthis Defendant that thisfactor factorweighs weighsin infavor favor of of dismissal dismissal with wit prejudice. prejudice.Thus, Thus,the the court court finds finds that that
3 the seriousness of the seriousness of theoffenses offenses charged chargedweigh weigh in in favor of ofdismissal with prejudice. dismissal with 4 (2) The TheFacts Facts and and Circumstances Circumstances of ofthe the case case which led to the dismissal dismissal 5 When looldng When lookingat at the the facts facts and and circumstances of the case which led to dismissal, trial courts 6
7 have considered: bad faith by the Government or or the the court court in in causing the delay; delay, actual actual prejudice 7
8 to the the defendant, defendant; unavailability of ofwitnesses, witnesses; the the disappearance or deterioration of exculpatory disappearance or exculpatory
9 evidence, evidence; whether whether the defendant was was in in confinement confinement while awaiting the initiation initiation of ofthe the case. case. See 10 . . .a . Aromin Aron ,r in atat1[ 24. "While notdlsposltlve "Whlle not dispositiveunde under this se r this second factor, the cond factor, also eevaluates whether court also the court whe 11 government's conduct the court's or government's conduct rises rises to to the the level of of 'something 'something more more than than an an isolated isolated 12 12
13 unwitting violation,' such as unwitting violation,' asaafinding findingof of'bad 'badfaith' faith'or oraa'pattern 'patternofofneglect."' neglect."'Id. Id (quoting quoting United United as 14 14 States States v.v. Taylor, Taylor, 487 U.S. U.S. 326, 326, 339 339 (1988))." (1988))
15 15 An An "[i]nordinate "[i]nordinate delay delay between between public public charge charge and trial" trial" may (1) prejudice prejudice "a "a defense defense on 16 16 the merits"-such merits"-such as asthrough through the the deterioration deterioration of ofcrucial crucial evidence, unavailability of ofwitnesses, witnesses, or 17 17 subversion of the subversion of thedefendant's defendant'sability abilitytotoprepare preparefor fortrial-or trial-or (2) (2) seriously seriously prejudice prejudice "defendant's 18 18
19 19 liberty, ... liberty, . .. disrupt disrupt his his employment, drain his financial resources, resources, curtail curtailhis his associations, associations,subj act subject
20 20 obloquy, and create him to public obloquy, create anxiety anxiety in him,his family and his friends." and his friends."Corpuz ,r 25; United Corpuz 1]25, 21 v. Bert, 814 F.3d 70, 82 (ad States v. (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Taylor, 487 U.S. at 340-41) 340-41) (explaining 22 22 prejudice to defendant may may come come in in trial trial prejudice prejudice or non-trial non-trial prejudice); prejudice), Aron Aromin, 2014 Guam 3 23 23
24 24 ,r 24 mentioning8 examples (mentioning examples of Preludice prejudice J such such as as witness witness unavailabilityY , deterioration unavailability, deterioration of
25 exculpatory evidence or exculpatory evidence, or curtailment of defendant's liberty). curtailment of liberty).
26 26 As mentioned As mentioned earlier, earlier, the the court court scheduled scheduled retrial during during a Pre-Trial Pre-Trial COnference Conference that that was 27 27 heard three days heard three days before before that retrial date. that retrial date. Despite Despite the the People taking taking no issue issue with with this this court court 28
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People's Motion MotiontotoDismiss DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. Akoma, Aroma, CM0363-22 CM0363-22 Page 10 JO of of 13 13 over the original presiding over original trial, trial, it filed its Statement of of Objection Objection against against this court on the day of of 1
2 retrial, July 19, 19, 2024. 2024. The The court court notes notes that that during during this this time, time, the the same same Statement Statement of Objection was
3 of other criminal cases assigned to this court. filed in a multitude of court. Although Although the People elected to 4 withdraw the same withdraw the same Statement Statement of of Objection in some Objection in some of of this this court's court'scases, cases, Defendant Akoma's case Akorna's case 5 of the few was one of few cases cases where where the the People People awaited awaited disposition disposition of of the the Statement Statement of of Objection Objection 6
7 through a recusal recusal judge's judge's Decision and Order.
8 Another circumstance that led to the dismissal of of the case case was the the unavailability unavailability of of the 9 victim as a primary material witness needed for for the the retrial. retrial. On September September 19, 19, 2024, 2024, the court court 10 10 received the victim's received victim's public public statement statement regarding regarding her her unwillingness unwillingness to to testify again and experience 11 throughout this throughout this whole whole case. case. In addition, addition, the the Defendant cited to aa public public article article that that included included 12 12
13 1 statements from the Attorney General regarding this case, which was still active at the time the
14 14 article went live online. See article See Def. 26, 2024). Def.'s Response (Dec. 26, 15 Thus, regarding regarding whether whether the the People's People's conduct conduct rises to the level of "something more than 16 16 an isolated unwitting violation," violation," the the court court views views the People's conduct conduct here here as as such such aa violation. 17 17 facts and circumstances of this case, Therefore, the court finds that the facts case, which led to dismissal, 18 18
19 19 weigh in favor of of dismissal with prejudice.
20 (3) The The impact impact of ofaa reprosecution reprosecution on the administration of of justice 21 "The "The Court should also look to the the likelihood of of repeated violations and whether potential 22 administrative changes are prompted by the the violation." violation." Bert, 814 F.3d at 86. 86. While While not as serious 23 23
24 24 of aa sanction of sanction as as dismissal dismissal with prejudice, prejudice, dismissal without prejudice would still still require the
25 25 People to obtain a new new indictment indictment and potentially potentially face dismissal dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. 26 ,r 27 (quoting Taylor, Corpuz11 Corpuz Taylor, 487 U.S. at 342). 27
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People'sMotion MotiontotoDismiss DismissWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. v. Akoma, Aroma, CM0363-22 Page 11 11 of of 13 13 The court notes notes the theAttorney AttorneyGeneral's General's "professional "professional opinion that that aanew new trial trialisis likely likely to 1
2 end in an acquittal." acquittal." Memo. Memo. Supporting PpL's Mot. Dismiss Supporting Ppl.'s Dismiss (Dec. 10, 10, 2024). 2024). In In this this case, case, re-
3 prosecuting this case case would would negatively negatively impact impact the the administration of justice when when considering the 4 4 victim's publicized publicized unwillingness unwillingness to to go forward fmward with with aa retrial retrial and and the the Attorney Attorney General's General's 5 professional professional opinion opinionshould shouldthe the Defendant Defendant be be reindicted reindicted on on the the same charges. charges. Therefore, the the court 6 6
finds that the impact that the impact of of the prosecution on the reprosecution on the the administration administrationof ofjustice justiceweighs weighsin in favor favor of 7
8 dismissal with with prejudice.
9 Because Because all three factors weigh in three factors in favor favor of ofdismissal dismissalwith withprejudice, prejudice,the the court court holds holds that that 10 10 . . . . . this case be dismissed dlsmlssed with for the wlth prejudice for the reasons set forth above. II \\ 12 12
113 \\
14 14 \\ \\
15 \\ 16 16 \\ \\ 17 17 \\ 18 18
19 19 \\\
20 20 \\ \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 24 24 \\
25 \\
26 26 \\ 27 27 \\ 28
Decision Decision &&Order Order Re. Re. People's People's Motion MotiontotoDismiss DismissW ithout Prejudice Without Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. v. Akoma, CM0363-22 CM0363-22 Page 12 of 13 12 of 13 CONCLUSION 1
2 For the reasons above, the court hereby DENIES the People's Motion to Dismiss without People's Motion
3 Prejudice. The court further orders this case DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4
5 No further proceeding is scheduled scheduled before before this this court. 6
~ 9 ApR U39 2025 APR 2[]25 7 this SO ORDERED this ----------- . 8
9 -/,·~ - .~~~~~ 10 =@l
11 11
12 12 HONORABLE L E ALBERTO-E-. i i ' 6 E . TOLENTINO EN Superior Court of Guam Judge, Superior 13 13
15 15
20 20
23 23
24 24
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. People's People'sMotion MotiontotoDismiss DismissWithout WithoutPrejudice Prejudiceininthe theInterest Interest of ofJustice Justice People v. v. Akoma, Aroma, CM0363-22 Page 13 13 of of 13 13