People v. Benavente

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: CF0678-23
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 gr I L E 9 CLERK OF CGUHT 2

3 2025 rum24 2025 MAR 21+PM PH2:2: 10 I 4 sum=a?<§oR CG§?=€T UF GUAM Q- OFGUAM~ 5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. NO.CF0678-23 CF0678-23 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER II JUSTIN PETER BENAVENTE, 12 Defendant. 13 13

14 14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter came came before the Honorable Vernon P. P. Perez on March Perez on March 13, 13, 2025, 2025, for hearing 16 on Defendant PeterBenavente's Defendant Justin Peter Benavente's("Benavente") ("Benavente") Motion Motion to Sever. Sever. Present Present were Assistant 17 17 Attorney General Attorney General Grant Grant Olan Olan on behalf of ofthe the People of Guam ("the ("the Government") Government")and and Benavente 18 with counsel, with counsel, Joaquin C. C. Arriola, Arriola, Jr. Jr. Having Havingreviewed reviewedthe thepleadings, pleadings,the thearguments arguments presented, presented, 19 19 and the record, record, the the Court Court now now issues issuesthe thefollowing following Decision Decision and Order. and Order. 20 20 BACKGROUND 21 21 On October 27, 2023, 2023, Benavente Benaventewas wasindicted indictedwith with one onecount countof of Third Third Degree Degree Criminal Criminal 22 22 Sexual Conduct (As Sexual Conduct (As a Second SecondDegree DegreeFelony). Felony).(Indictment, (Indictment, Oct. Oct. 27, 27, 2023). 2023). The Indictment also also 23 23 charged aaco-actor, co-actor,Scott ScottDuenas Due fasIIIIII("Duenas") ("Due fas") with with two counts of Third Third Degree Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual 24 24 1 Id The Court previously denied Co-Defendant Duenas's Conduct (As a Second SecondDegree DegreeFelony). Felony).' Id. The Court previously denied Co-Defendant 25 25

I1 Although Although the the Government Government subsequently subsequently obtained a Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment from the grand grand jury jury on March March 7, 2025, 26 26 no no additional additionalcharges charges were were added added nor were any charges removed. removed. The The Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictmentchanged changed the language 27 27 within the the body of the the charges charges from "T.F. "T.F. (DOB: 10/19/1989) was mentally defective or mentally incapacitated incapacitated or physically helpless" physically helpless" to "T.F. "T.F. (DOB: 10/19/1989) was mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically (DOB: 10/19/1989) was mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, physically 28 28 helpless." helpless." Compare Indictment, Indictment, Oct. Oct. 27, 27, 2023 with Superseding Superseding Indictment, Mar. 7, 2025.

People People v. v. Benavente & Due fas Duenas Case No. CF0678-23 Case No. Decision Decision and and Order

Page l1 of of5 1 Motion Motion to to Sever Defendants. 2 See Dec. & Sever Defendants & Order, Order, May May25, 25, 2024. 2024. Jury Jury Selection Selection and Trial is 2 currently set to currently set commence on to commence on April April 2, 2, 2025 2025 for for both defendants. defendants. The Mal trial date date was was set set after after 3 fas asserted Duenas assertedhis hisright righttotoaaspeedy speedytrial. trial.See SeeAssertion Assertionof of Speedy Speedy Trial (Due fas), Feb. (Duenas), Feb. 5, 5, 2025, 2025; 4 Third Amended Amended Criminal Trial Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order, Order, Feb. Feb. 5, 5, 2025. 2025. 5 On February 20, 2025, February 20, 2025, Benavente Benaventefiled filed the the instant instantMotion. Motion. On OnFebruary February 24, 24, 2025, 2025, the 6 Government filed its Opposition. On On March March 5, 5, 2025, Benavente Benavente filed filed his his Reply. Reply.

7 On March 10, 10, 2025, Benavente asserted 2025, Benavente assertedhis hisright righttotoaaspeedy speedytrial. trial. See Statement Re: Statement Re: 8 Speedy Preliminary Fxamination, Examination, Indictment Indictment and Speedy Trial, Mar. Mar. 10, 10, 2025. 9 On March March 13, 13, 2025, 2025, the Court heard heard arguments the Motion arguments on the Motion and and subsequently subsequently placed 10 10 the matter under advisement. advisement.

11 DISCUSSION

12 12 Benavente moves the Benavente moves to sever Court to the Court sever his his trial trial from from that that of ofDue fas pursuant Duenas to 8 pursuant to 8 G.C.A.§ G.C.A.§

13 65.35. 65.35. Pursuant to section 65.35: Pursuant to 65.35: 14 If If itit appears appears that that a defendant defendant oror the the government governmentisis prejudiced prejudicedby byaajoinder jointer of offenses or of ofdefendants defendants in an indictment indictment or or information informationor or by by such suchjoinder jointer for 15 15 court may order an election trial together, the court or separate election or separate trials of ofcounts, counts, grant grant a 16 16 severance of defendants defendants ororprovide provide whatever whatever other otherrelief reliefjustice requires. 8 8 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§65.35 65.35 (emphasis (emphasis added).3 added). 3 There There is is aa general general preference preference for for joint joint trials trials of ofdefendants defendants 17 17 who are are indicted indicted together, together, as as joint jointtrials trialsserve serveaanumber number of ofpurposes purposes:: 18 18

19 19

20 2 Due fas moved the Court to sever his trial from Duenas from Benavente Benavente because because "the juryjury may may not not reasonably reasonably be expected to collate and appraise the appraise the individual evidence against against each defendant, and joint trial would compromise each defendant, and joint trial would compromise Defendant 21 Duenas's Sixth Duenas's Sixth Amendment Amendment Right Right toto confront confront Defendant Defendant Benavente." (Due (Duenasfas Mot. Severat Mot.Sever at 4, 4, Jan. 17, 2024). Jan. 17, 2024). The 22 Court Court ultimately ultimately determined determined that that it was "not "not persuaded persuaded thatthat Duenas Due faswillwill be be clearly, clearly, manifestly, manifestly, or or unduly unduly prejudiced being tried jointly by being jointlywith withBenavente" Benavente"(Dec.(Dec. &&Order Orderatat4,4,May May29, 2024)and 29,2024) and that that itit did did "not "notfind findthat thatDue fas has Duenas has 23 presented any any statements statementsby byBenavente Benaventethat thatdirectly directlyrefer refertotoororimplicate implicatehim." him."Id. Id at 5.

24 3 Section 65.35 Section mirrorsRule 65.35 mirrors 14(a)of Rule14(a) FederalRules theFederal of the Rulesof ofCriminal CriminalProcedure. Procedure.See See88G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 65.35, 65.35,Note. Note. Rule Rule l4(a) 14(a) provides: provides: 25 (a) (a) RELIEF. RELIEF. If If the thejointer of of joinder offenses offensesorordefendants defendantsininananindictment, indictment, anan information, information, or a 26 consolidation consolidation forfor trial trialappears appears to prejudice prejudice aa defendant defendant or or the the government, the court may order separate trials of separate trials of counts, counts, sever sever the the defendants' defendants' trials, trials, or or provide provide any any other relief that that justice 27 requires. requires. As As such, such, the Court may may Mm tum toto federal federal case case law law interpreting interpreting thethe analogous analogous federal rules for guidance. guidance. See, See, e.g., e.g., 28 Sumitomo Sumitomo Constr. Co., Ltd. Constr. Co., Ltd v. v. Zhong Ye, Inc., 1997 Guam 8117 Ye, Inc., ,r 7 ("Generally, ("Generally, when when aa legislature legislature adopts a statute which

People v. Benavente & Due People Duenas fas Case No. No. CF0678-23 cF0678-23 _ Decision Decision and and Order

Page 2 of5 of 5 1 It would would impair impair bothboth the efficiency and the efficiency and the the fairness fairness of ofthe the criminal criminal justice justice system system to require, require, in all these these cases of of joint crimes where incriminating statements exist, joint crimes where incriminating statements 2 that prosecutors bring that prosecutors bring separate separate proceedings, proceedings, presenting presenting the the same same evidence evidence again 3 and and again, again, requiring requiring victims and and witnesses witnesses to repeat repeat the the inconvenience inconvenience (and(and sometimes trauma) trauma) of of testifying, and randomly favoring the last-tried defendants testifying, and randomly favoring the last-tried defendants 4 who have the the advantage advantage of of knowing the prosecution's case beforehand. beforehand. Joint Joint trials 5 generally generally serve serve the the interests interests of justice justice by by avoiding avoidinginconsistent inconsistent verdicts verdicts and and 6 enabling enabling more accurateaccurate assessment assessment of relative relative culpability-advantages culpability-advantages which which sometimes operate to the defendant's benefit. Even apart sometimes operate to the defendant's benefit. Even apart from these tactical from these tactical 7 considerations, considerations, jointjoint trials trials generally generally serve serve the the interests interestsofof justice justice by by avoiding thethe 8 scandal and scandal inequity of and inequity of inconsistent verdicts. verdicts.

99 Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200,210 481 U.S. 210(1987). (1987). The trial court court has great discretion when ruling

10 10 on a motion to sever. sever. United United States States v. Kabbaby, Kabbaby, 672 F.2d 857, 672 F.2d 857, 861 861(11th (nth Cir. Cir. 1982) 1982) (citation (citation

11 omitted), omitted); see see also also United United States States v.v. Zieree, Zicree, 605 605 F.2d 1381, 1381, 1388 (5th Cir. 1388 (5th Cir. 1979) 1979) ("the judge

12 12 considering aa motion motion for for severance severance must must balance the right of of aa defendant defendant to a fair trial against against the 13 13 interests of judicial economy. interests of economy. This balancing process is balancing process is within the the discretion discretion of the the trial trial 14 14 ...").")."[I]t judge ... is well "[I]t settled is well that settled defendants that defendantsare arenot notentitled entitledtotoseverance severancemerely merelybecause because they 15 15 may have a better chance chance of of acquittal acquittal in separate trials." Zafro separate trials." Zajirov.v. United UnitedStates, States, 506 U.S. 534, 534, 16 16 540 (1993) (1993) (citation omitted).

17 17 Benavente argues argues that severance is appropriate in this matter because because "a "a serious potential

18 18 avenue for each avenue defense is each defense is that that the alleged alleged victim victimwas wasconfused confusedand andthat that the the other other Defendant Defendant 19 19 committed the charged committed the charged acts" acts" which which "would render render aa joint joint trial trial prejudicial prejudicial to to Defendant Defendant 20 20 Benavente's right to a fair trial." (Mot. (Mot.Sever Severatat5,5,Feb. Feb. 20, 20, 2025). 2025). Benavente Benaventealso alsosets sets forth forth that that

21 "[t]he "[t]hediscovery discoverydemonstrates demonstrates that that the alleged victim victimhad had an an amicable, amicable, and and possibly aa romantic romantic 22 22 and/or sexual past and/or sexual past relationship relationship with Defendant Defendant Due fas. She Duenas. She had no no prior prior relationship relationship with 23 23 Defendant Benavente." Id Defendant Benavente." Id Benavente Benavente argues argues that that "[a] jury jurycould coulddetermine determine that that because because 24 24 Defendant Duenas fas knew the the victim, and and potentially potentiallyknew knew her her intimately, intimately,he he had had aa better gauge on 25 her incapacity or physical helplessness. helplessness. Defendant Defendant Benavente Benavente plans to make this this point a pivotal pivotal

27 is identical or similar to one in effect in another another jurisdiction, it is presumed that the adopting jurisdiction applies the construction placed onon the the statute statute by the the originating originating jurisdiction. This rule of of construction is useful in helping the 28 judiciary interpret statutes statutes adopted adopted from federal acts.").

People People v. Benavente & Due fas Duenas Case No. No. CF0678-23 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 3 of5 of 1 part of his his defense. defense. This This is is aa mutually mutually antagonistic antagonistic defense defense because because if the the jury jury believes believes Defendant Defendant

22 Benavente had no prior knowledge Benavente had knowledge of how the the victim victim normally normally behaved, behaved, then her level of of 3 intoxication is less forceful, than with Defendant Defendant Duenas." fas." (Reply (Reply at at 2, 2, Mar. 5, 2025). 4 antagonistic defenses are not "Mutually antagonistic not prejudicial prejudicial per se. se."" Zajiro, Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 538 5 (1993). "Rule (1993). "Rule 14 14 does does not not require require severance severance even even ififprejudice prejudice is is shown, shown; rather rather itit leaves leaves the 6 tailoring of the the relief relief to to be be granted, granted, if if any, any,totothe thedistrict districtcourt's court'ssound sounddiscretion." discretion." Id Id at at 538-39. 7 Only where jointer joinderwould wouldcreate create "a "a serious serious risk risk that that aa joint joint trial trial would compromise aa specific specific 8 trial right of one of of the defendants, defendants, or or prevent prevent the" jury from the jury from making malting a reliable reliable judgment judgment about

9 innocence," must the guilt or innocence," the Court Court grant grant severance. severance. Id. Id. at at 539. 539. "To be entitled to severance on

10 10 the the basis mutually sis of mutua lly a ntagonistic gonistic defenses, defenses, aa defendant defenda nt must must show show that tha t the the core the cor e of the

11 11 is so irreconcilable with the core of codefendant's defense is of his own defense that the acceptance of of 12 12 the codefendant's codefendant's theory theory by the jury precludes precludes acquittal acquittal of the defendant." defendant." United States v. 13 1 Throckmorton, Throckmorton, 87 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 1996) l 996) (citation omitted). omitted).

14 14 In this this case, case, Benavente Benavente is is charged charged with with committing committing TThird hird Degree Degree Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual 15 15 engaging in Conduct by engaging fellatio with in fellatio with T.F. T.F. on on or or about about August August 25, 25, 2023 2023 and and Due fas is charged Duenas 16 16 Third Degree Criminal with committing Third Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct Conduct by by having having sexual sexual intercourse intercourse and anal 17 17 intercourse with T.F. T.F. the the same same day. day. (Superseding (Superseding Indictment, Mar. Mar. 7, 7, 2025). 2025). Both are alleged to

18 18 have done so so knowing knowing or or having having reason reason to to know know that that T.F. T.F. was was mentally mentally impaired, impaired, mentally mentally 19 19 incapacitated, incapacitated, oror physically physicallyhelpless. helpless. Id Id TThe he Government Government sets sets forth forth in in its its Opposition Opposition that that 20 20 "[n]othing in the "[n]othing the case case suggests suggests that Defendant Defendant Duenas fas claims claims of innocence innocence upon Duenas's 21 assertion that the criminal acts charged against Duenas, fas, while while the the victim was incapacitated, were

22 22 not committed by Duenas fas but but rather rather only onlyby byBenavente." Benavente." (Opp'n (Opp'n at at 8). Further, Further, even even if if "a "a jury 23 23 found that Defendant Defendant Due fas was not involved Duenas involved in in raping the victim, victim, such such aa finding of of acquittal of of 24 24 Defendant Defendant Due fas does not necessitate that the jury Duenas jury finds finds Benavente performed sexual sexual acts upon 25 the victim." Id. atat10. victim." Id thistime, 10. AtAthis time,the theCourt Courtdoes doesnot notfind find that that Benavente Benavente has has shown shown that that the 26 26 core ofDuenas's defense isis so Duenas's defense so irreconcilable with with the core of of his own defense that the acceptance 27 27 of of Duenas's Duenas's theory theory by by the the jury jury precludes precludes acquittal. acquittal. The Court Court finds that a jury will be able to 28 assess assess guilt or innocence of each defendant on an an individual individual and and independent independent basis, basis, and and that that it

People People v. v. Benavente & & Due fas Duenas Case No. No. CF0678-23 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 4 of5 of 1 will be possible possible for for the the jury jury to to find find that that both, both, neither, neither, or only one one of of the the defendants defendants committed 2 the alleged acts. Thus, Thus,atat this this time, time, itit is is not clear that the the defense defense of of one onedefendant defendant will will necessarily necessarily 3 indicate the guilt of the the other. other. Additionally, "[a]ny "[ a]ny potential potential prejudice prejudice may may be be resolved resolved through 4 the use of limiting limiting jury jury instructions." Richardson, 481 instructions." Richardson, 481 U.S. U.S. at 211. 211. "Juries "Juries are are presumed presumed to 5 follow their instructions." instructions." Zafro, Zafiro, 506 506U.S. U.S. atat 540 540 (citation (citation omitted). omitted). Without Without more, more, the the Court Court 6 finds that the use use oflimiting of limiting jury jury instructions instructions will will be sufficient to to cure cure any any possible possible prejudice. prejudice. At 7 trial, the Court will will instruct the jury jury that it must must consider the the evidence evidence against each defendant and 8 evaluate each defendant's guilty separately. separately. Accordingly, Accordingly, the the Court Court will will not not grant grant severance severance on 9 this basis. 10 10 argues severance Benavente also argues severance is appropriate because he appropriate because he waived his right to a speedy 11 11 trial and is pending DNA testing results from the Government which is relevant to his defense 12 12 and will likely likely not not be available available prior prior to trial trial in light of Duenas's assertion. assertion. (Mot. (Mot. Sever Sever at at 5). 13 1 Benavente states that "Defendant "Defendant Duenas fas has has demanded a speedy trial, before the DNA evidence 14 14 results results are expected and before expected and before Defendant Defendant Benarente Benavente has has reviewed reviewed the the material material with a DNA 15 15 expert for the the Defense." Defense." (Reply at 3). 16 16 Five days after after Benavente Benavente filed his Reply Reply to to the the Government's Government's Opposition, Opposition, he also also 17 17 asserted his right asserted his right to to a speedy speedy trial. trial. See Statement Statement Re: Speedy Speedy Preliminary Preliminary Examination, Examination, 18 18 Indictment Indictment and Speedy Trial, Mar. 10, 2025. 2025. Accordingly, Acc6rdingly, the the Court Court finds no basis for severance 19 19 based on Benavente's argument that he waived speedy trial and will not not have have necessary necessary DNA 20 20 evidence prior to to the the commencement commencement of of trial trial in in light light of Duenas's Duenas's assertion. 21 CONCLUSION CONCL{lSION 22 22 Benaventefs Motion to Sever. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Benavente',S 23 23 IT IS SO ORDERED this 32Lf-1ay 4 day of of March, 2025. 24 24 snvlcl SDVICI! `>' we e44IAII. VIA l!-MAIL 25 Il arfnowredge ilCi~OINle~ethat anllf"I that _eleztv onnc _9lect,on1t l Cony Copy o·•of ,he ot,g,na1 was me olvgfna' mauled to wa,- emailed'

#H /lrr,t/ /If: I1 Hr. 0/p, q 26 I 27 HONORABLE VERNON P. p. PEREZ w S/ /@* 2:/6 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 28 /74 U-Au ~~ Deputy clerk, clerk, Superlcr Superior Coin Court09 of Guam Guam l

People People v. v. Benavente & Duenas Benavente & fas Case No. CF0678-23 Decision Decision and and Order I

Page 5 of5 of I

I