People v. Babauta

Opinion

20!t5 JUL 16 PM 3: 55 2 C~OUF{T 3 O,J: t:":U}\f

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0680-23 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) GPD Report No. 23-03172 ) 8 vs. ) ) 9 ) ) DECISION & ORDER 10 JORDAN MICHAEL BABAUTA, RE. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ) DOB: 03/15/1991 DISMISS 11 ) ) 12 Defendant. ________ _ _ _)) 13

14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on December 27, 2024 15 through Defendant Jordan Michael Babauta's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss or Exclude 16 Untimely Disclosed Witnesses. On December 30, 2024, the court held a motion hearing where 17

18 the Defendant was present with counsel Attorney Vanessa Williams. Assistant Attorney General

19 Aaron Boyce was present for the People of Guam ("People"). Ultimately, the court granted the 20 dismissal of this case as an appropriate sanction for the violation. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 1:26:20 21 - 29:14PM (Dec. 30, 2024). Having duly considered the parties' briefings, oral argument, and 22 the applicable law, the court now issues this Decision and Order, memorializing its earlier ruling 23

24 to GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Exclude

25 Untimely Disclosed Witnesses. 26 \\ 27 \\ 28

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss People v. Babauta,'CF0680-23 Page 1 of 4 BACKGROUND

2 The Defendant was charged with the following offenses: (1) ARMED CARJACKING

3 (As a 1st Degree Felony) with Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a 4 Felony as a Special Allegation; (2) SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY (As a 2nd Degree Felony) 5 with Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony as a Special 6

7 Allegation; (3) THEFT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE (As a 2nd Degree Felony) with Possession or

8 Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony as a Special Allegation; and (4)

9 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (As a 3rd Degree Felony) with Possession or Use of a Deadly 10 Weapon in the Commission of a Felony as a Special Allegation. See Indictment (Oct. 24, 2023). 11 The court previously issued its Decision and Order denying the Defendant's earlier 12

13 Motion to Dismiss on the basis of a speedy trial violation. See Decision & Order (Dec. 3, 2024).

14 On December 27, 2024, the Defendant subsequently filed his Motion to Dismiss or Exclude 15 Untimely Disclosed Witnesses (8 GCA § 70.45) ("Motion to Dismiss"). The court addressed oral 16 arguments on the Motion to Dismiss in a motion hearing held on December 30, 2024, where it 17 ultimately dismissed this case for reasons discussed below. 18

19 DISCUSSION

20 "If at any time during the course of the proceedings, it is brought to the attention of the 21 court that a party has failed to comply with an order issued pursuant to this Chapter, the court 22 may order such party to comply with the prior order, grant a continuance, or issue such other 23

24 order as it deems just under the circumstances." 8 GCA § 70.45. The Guam Supreme Court

25 determines a proper sanction using the following factors: (1) reasons why the disclosure was not

26 made; (2) the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; (3) the feasibility ofrectifying 27

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss People v. Babauta, CF0680-23 Page 2 of 4 that prejudice by a continuance; and (4) any other relevant circumstances. People v. Tuncap,

2 1998 Guam ,i 25 (citing United States v. Sarcinelli, 667 F.2d 5, 7 (5th Cir. 1982)).

3 Pursuant to 8 GCA § 70.45 and the factors outlined in Tuncap, the Defendant sought this 4 case's dismissal given the untimely disclosure of "the identities, addresses, and record of prior 5 criminal convictions of all witnesses they intend to call for trial." Def.'s Mot. at 5 (Dec. 27, 6

2024). In response, the People argued that dismissal was a serious sanction for the untimely 7

8 disclosure of evidence they do not believe to be exculpatory. See Mot. Hr' g Mins. at 1:20:20 -

9 21:07PM.

Based on the first Tuncap factor, the People indicated that they had no record or reasons 11 for the failure to disclosure their witnesses in accordance with the court's order. See Mot. Hr'g 12

13 Mins. at 1:21: 11 - 21 :30PM. As to the second Tuncap factor, the court agreed that the untimely

14 disclosure of witnesses and other evidence would prejudice the Defendant's ability to prepare

15 his defense on an expedited basis. Id. at 1:26:20 - 29:14PM. Lastly, the court's analysis of the 16 third Tuncap factor shows that a continuance would not rectify the Defendant's prejudice due 17 to his assertion of speedy trial. Id. 18

19 Because the Tuncap factors weigh in favor of the Defendant, the court found dismissal

20 as an appropriate sanction for the People's violation of 8 GCA § 70.45. Id. at 1 :26:20-29: 14PM. 21 The court also found that dismissal rendered the Defendant's alternative motion to exclude the 22 admission of untimely disclosed witnesses at trial as moot. 23

24 \\

25 \\

26 \\

27 \\

28 \\

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss People v. Babauta, CF0680-23 Page 3 of4 CONCLUSION

2 For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN

3 PART the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Exclude Untimely Disclosed Witnesses. 4

5 SO ORDERED this -----"-J~U=L_1~5~2=0=25=--' nunc pro tune, December 30, 2024 . . ~;,...- -_. --: -- 6 - le'--·- : . . ". ~- • ~. •'/":: . '.1 ,,./.

7 - /'

8 .,., ~----- --;:,.,,,- ... · ./

9 ✓- .... - ---..-...;._ ·-:-~--~:,,._='.:::::::::,,,_ _ ./ //; 10 HONdRABLE AL~ERTO E. TOLENTINO II Judge, Superi9r:~ourt of Guam

24 SERVICE VIA EMAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 25 copy of the original was e-mailed to:

27 Date. ' me:,3!$,{ti Lindlau. 28

Decision & Order Re. Motion to Dismiss People v. Babauta, CF0680-23 Page 4 of 4