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
26
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