People v. Angoco

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM ) ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0428-94 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER MARK BAMBA ANGOCO, ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 ---------------------------) 8 INTRODUCTION 9 This matter came before the Honorable Katherine A. Maraman on the Defendant' 10 request for judicial notice, filed October 8, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on October 9, II 2012. Attorney David J. Lujan represented the Defendant and Assistant Attorney General Geral 12 L. Henderson appeared on behalf of the Government. Having considered the parties' briefs, ora

13 arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 The Defendant contends that Guam R. Evid. 20 1(d) requires the Court to take judicia 16 notice of portions of the judgment in his first trial, specifically the May 24, 1995 judgment 0 17 acquittal for the charges of aggravated murder, robbery, theft, burglary and the unlawfu 18 possession and use of a deadly weapon. (Request for Judicial Notice, 1-2, Oct. 8, 2012.) Th 19 Defendant does not request that the Court take judicial notice of the same May 24, 1995 20 judgment of conviction for the charge of aggravated murder during the commission of a robber 21 or hindering apprehension. This conviction is inconsistent with the acquittal of robbery and th 22 underlying charge is the subject of the present retrial at the instruction of the Supreme Court 0 23 Guam. See People v. Angoco, 2004 Guam 11 ~~ 15,23,26-27. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Pursuant to In the Interest of NA., 2001 Guam 7 ~ 58, it is proper for the Court to tak 26 judicial notice of the truth of the contents of court judgments. !d. (citing In Re Snider Farms, 27 Inc., 83 B.R. 977, 986-87 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1988)). The Court must take judicial notice of a 28 adjudicative fact, "if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information." Gua

R. Evid. 201(d).

Page 1 of3 In this case, the Defendant requests judicial notice of the May 24, 1995 judgments 0 2 acquittal and the Court is supplied with the necessary information to do so. On this basis, th 3 Court has the power to take judicial notice of these facts as the truth of these acquittals. Se 4 GRE 201(d) and In the Interest ofNA., 2001 Guam 7 ~ 58. However, the Court does not end it 5 inquiry at GRE 201(d). The court must determine if the facts are admissible as evidence. 6 Evidence of the inconsistent verdicts may be irrelevant and inadmissible evidence in this case. 7 The May 24, 1995 judgment is based upon inconsistent verdicts and has limited probativ 8 value in this retrial. The judgment shows that the prior jury found the Defendant not guilty 0 9 robbery but guilty of murder during the commission of a robbery. These findings are no 10 probative of any fact of consequence in this retrial. Therefore the evidence is irrelevant an 11 inadmissible. See e.g. Guam R. Evid. 401 and 402; Guam v. Castro, 2002 Guam 23 ~ 32 (citin 12 US v. Gricco, 277 F.3d 339, 352 (3d Cir. 2002) ("evidence of prior acquittals is generally 13 inadmissible")). 14 The appellate decisions and the most recent decision of this court applying the law of th 15 case indicate re-trial shall be based on the Second Charge of the Superseding Indictment. "W 16 hold that the doctrine of double jeopardy does not bar the retrial of Angoco for felony aggravate 17 murder." See People v. Angoco, 2004 Guam 11 ~~ 3 and 24. 18 However, even relevant evidence, "may be excluded if its probative value is substantiall 19 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.' 20 Guam R. Evid. 403. The limited probative value of a prior acquittal is substantially outweighe 21 by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues and misleading the jury. See Castro 22 2002 Guam 23 at ~ 32 n. 8. 23 In this case, the Court agrees with the Government that the evidence of a 24 inconsistent acquittal, "invites the jury to substitute the previous verdict for its own independen 25 judgment of the evidence before it." (Opposition, 2, Oct. 8,20]2.) Furthermore, the admissio 26 of prior acquittals in this particular case shall necessarily require a technical explanation of mor 27

Page 201'3 than a decade of appeals that have culminated in this retrial.} For these reasons, the Court als 2 finds that the limited probative value of the May 24, 1995 judgment is substantially outweighe 3 by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues and misleading the jury. Therefore 4 evidence of prior acquittals shall be excluded from the evidence and the request for its judicia 5 notice shall be denied. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Based upon the foregoing, the People's objection is sustained and the Defendant' 8 request for judicial notice of his prior acquittals is hereby DENIED. 9

10 SO ORDERED this 9 th day of October, 2012. II

13 ~d/?laA~~ 14 o;(~NORABLE KATHERINE A. MARAMAN Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15

25 I For example, if the inconsistent acquittal of robbery is offered to prove innocence or to suggest that th 26 Government cannot prove the element of robbery in this case, then the Court would have to explain the following t the jury: 1) the acquittal of the third charge of robbery was inconsistent with the conviction of the second charge 0 27 murder during robbery; 2) the inconsistent conviction could be retried after a successful habeas petition for the ineffective assistance of counsel; 3) pursuant to People v. Angoco, 2004 Guam 11, res judicata and collateral 28 estoppel do not prohibit the Government from retrying the inconsistent conviction in this case, namely the secon charge of murder during robbery, including the robbery element; and 4) for the foregoing reasons, the jury shall no consider the prior inconsistent acquittal of robbery as evidence in this retrial of murder during robbery.

Page 3 of3