People v. Barcinas

Opinion

r.

"R

.\ /

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

1. 2UI8HAY -8 I1HI0=26 2 {,`LERK@g[]URT

3 By:_

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM,

) CRIMINAL CASE NO.

6 ) CF0066-16-01 7 v. )

) DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING 8 AUSTIN JAMES CRUZ BARCINAS, ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS DOB: 02/23/1995, ) AND FOR EXPUNGEMENT 9 )

10 DEFENDANT. )

)

11

12 . Introduction

13 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on April 17, 2018 for a hearing 14 on Austin James Cruz Barcinas' ("Defendant") Motion to Find Statements Non Material and to

15 Dismiss. Defendant was present and represented by Assistant Public Defender Richard Dirks.

16 The People of Guam (the "People") were represented by Assistant Attorney General Terry

17 VanEaton. Having reviewed the record and the relevant law, the Court led from the bench

18 GRANTING Dismissal and Expungement of the above-captioned matter. This Order further 19 memorializes the Court's ruling. 20 Background

21 Defendant was originally charged with perjury and criminal sexual conduct charges in 22 CF0066-16. See Decision and Order Severing Perjury Charge, at p. 5 (Feb. 6, 2018). The 23 perjury charge arises from Defendant's sworn testimony on January, 2016, during a trial for 24 criminal sexual conduct charges.l Defendant testified under oath that he had "never been 25 previously questioned or interviewed by police in any other criminal matter." Magistrate's 26 Complaint for CF0066-16 (Feb. 2, 2016). At the grand jury proceeding for CF0066-16, only a 27

28 1 Hereinafteras the "2016case."

People v. Austin James Cruz Bareinas,CF0066-16-01 Decision and Order Granting DefendanTs Motion to Dismiss and for Expungement r M I , \_

summary of Defendant's statements were provided to demonstrate the basis for the perjury 1 charge. See Motion to Find Statements Non-material andto Dismiss (Mar. 26, 2018).

2 On February 6, 2018, prior to the start of Defendant's jury trial, the Court sue sponge 3

4 severed the perjury charges. The Court reasoned jointer of these claims may have a prejudicial

5 effect against the Defendant since the offense of the 2016 trial and second trial "are of the same

6 nature." See Decision and Order Severing Perjury Charge, at p. 5 (Feb. 6, 2018). Further, the

7 People expressed their intent to present evidence from the 2016 case to prove the perjury charge

8 in this matter. The Court was primarily concerned the jury "might use that evidence to decide

9 Defendant's guilt." Id.

10 1 On February 14, 2018, after the conclusion of the CF0066-16 trial, the People were

11 instructed to file an Amended Indictment relating to the perjury charges, the Court designated

12 this matter as CF0066-I6-01. See Order Instructing Government to File Amended Indictment 13 (Feb. 14, 2018). 14 Defendant filed the instant motion requesting the Court to find the alleged false 15 statements non-material, in effect warranting a dismisser? Motion to Find Statements Non 16 Material and Dism iss (Mar. 26, 2018). In response, without conceding to the factual 17 underpinning of Defendant's Motion, the People acquiesce to the relief sought by the Motion. 18 See People's Response to Defendant's Motion Find Statements Non-Material and to Dismiss, at 19 p. 1(Apr. 9, 2018). At the hearing, the parties agreed the basis for dismissal constitute a "decline 20 to prosecute" thus warranting Dismissal with prejudice and an expungement.

21 Discussion

22 a. Defendant's statements were non-material.

23 Guam law defines the crime of perjury as follows, "A person is guilty of perjury if, 24 under oath in an official proceeding, he makes a false statement which is material and which he 25

26 z Defendant also argues Mat the statement was not false, that when asked, "It's your testimony here that you've 27 never spoken to a police officer before? Mr. Barcinas' replied "No." See Motionto Find Statements Non Material and Dismiss, at p. 7. Assuming the Court accepts the Defendant's contention, the Court's conclusion remains 28 unchanged.

People v. Austin James Cruz Barcinas; CF0066-16-01 Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Expungement

f- .

I I

\_,,/

does not believe to be true." 9 Guam Code Ann. § 52.l5(a) (emphasis added).3 A material 1 statements is defined as "a statement which affected or could have affected the course or 2 outcome of a proceeding, regardless of its admissibility under rules of evidence." Id. § 52.l5(b)

3 4 (emphasis added). In another jurisdiction adopting the Uniform Model Penal Code, false

5 testimony is deemed material if:

6 it tends directly or circumstantially to prove the central matters in issue or if it establishes or disproves matters which themselves bear crucially on the central 7 issues, if the alleged falsehoods are of collateral issues, the m ateriality requirement may be met by testimony relating to a collateral matter which, if 8 believed, has the capacity to affect the weight or force of the evidence bearing on 9 an ultimate issue and thus has the capacity to influence the tribunal hearing the judicial proceeding.

10 State v. Neal, 826 A.2d 723, 361 N.J.Super. 522 (2003) (emphasis added).

11 In this case, thelalleged false statement was that Defendant has "never" interacted with 12 the police, prior to the investigation of the 2016 case. W hether or not the Defendant was 13

14 interviewed, wanted for questioning, or ever interacted with the police has no bearing to the

15 ultimate issues in the 2016 case. A person's prior interactions with the police are generally

16 inadmissible unless offered under an exception. See Rule 404(b), 413 of the Guam Rules of

17 Evidence. The question posed by the prosecutor was immensely vague and thus unlikely to be

18 of any significance to a jury in a prosecution for 2016's criminal sexual conduct charges. State

19 v. Anderson, 127 N.J. 191, 603 A.2d 928 (1992) (holding the issue of materiality of allegedly

20 false statement in perjury prosecution is whether statement could have affected prior jury's

21 verdict). Therefore, the Court concludes Defendant's statements were non-material.

22 // 23 // 24

25 3 This law is identical to Model Penal Code 24I.l(1)-(2), Me Coup therefore looks to cases which interpret this law for guidance. Benaveme v. Taitano, 2006 Guam 15, 'Il48.

26 4 The term "statement" as used in this choPtee is defined as "any non-trivial represenlation, but a rePpresentation of 27 opinion, beliefor other state of mind is a statement only if Ir clearly relates to a state ofmind apart from or in addition to the facts which it otherwise represents." 9 Guam Code Ann. § 52. 10(e).

28 People v. Austin James Cruz Bareinas; CF0066-16-01 Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Expungernent

ff' w .

r)

r

"» J ~\ J

b. Dismissal with Prejudice and exoungement is proper.

1 The court may dismiss a prosecution pursuant to § 7.67 of the Criminal and Correctional 2 Code. 8 GuaM Code Ann. § 80.70. Pursuant to Section 7.67, the court may order a dismissal if 3

4 having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the

5 attendant circumstances, the court finds that the defendant's conduct presents such other

6 extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding

7 the offense. 9 Guam Code Ann. § 7.67. Having found the statements non-material as required 8 under 9 Guam Code Ann. § 52.l5(a) above, the Court finds dismissal is appropriate. 9 Expungement is also proper "when the prosecuting attorney decides not to prosecute the

10 offense." 8 Guam Code Ann. § 11.10(a) (emphasis added). The government indicated "a

11 conviction at trial is not reasonably possible at this stage." See People's Response to

12 Defendant's Motion Find Statements Non-Material and to Dismiss, at p. 1. The government also 13 represented that he has spoken with his immediate supervisors regarding his position on this 14 case. At this point, the parties agree that no further prosecution for this charge will be pursued. 15 Based on the representations of the parties, the Court is convinced that dismissal with prejudice 16 and expungement is also appropriate. 17 // 18 // 19 // 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 People v. Austin James Cnlz Barcilzas, CF006646-0 l Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Expungemenl

\l "

1

3

H.

Conclusion and Order

1

For the reasons provided above, the Court finds that it properly GRANTED the 2 Defendant's Motions to find Statements Non-material and for Dismissal. The Court hereby 3

4 ORDERS the above-captioned matter against Austin James Cruz Barcinas DISMISSED WITH

5 PREJUDICE AND EXPUNGED.

6 Under 8 Guam Code Ann. §§ 11.10 and 11. 11, the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk

7 of the Superior Court of Guam, the Office of the Attorney General of Guam, and the Guam

8 Police Department ("GPD") shall EXPUNGE their records of Austin James Cruz Barcinas in

9 Criminal Case No. CF0066-16-01 and GPD Report No. 12718590. A11 other local and federal

10 law enforcement agencies to which GPD reports shall seal any records of the above from public

11 inspection and refuse to admit the existence of such records to persons not entitled to examine

12 them. . 13 SO ORDERED this HAY as 2018 , nuns pro tune April 17, 2018. 14

15 5; K ._ Q 16 e ". Q ff . I

17 r'uonc51iABLE

. | -- -..MARIA.-T.* CENZON 18 Judge, Sqperiar Q6§lrg6f_.Guam

19 /'(. ,/4"

_. D-1 .

20

21

22 SERVICE am COURT BOX

23 IacknmMedge that a copy of the original herela was placed in the

\§ ,WL of) me c u b Ag .

24

25 i fzl

J

Date: .'5 g Le

26 Deputy Clerk, Subuiir C0url of Guam 27

28 People v. Austin James Cruz Earcinar, CF0066-16-01 .

Decision and Order GrantingDefendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Expungement