People v. Bosi
Opinion
i
FILED l `sup£RloR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 ZBISJUH 13 PH M03 <(~L[m€ or equal 4
5 By: 7' S 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0596-17 9
10
vs.
l l DECISION AND ORDER 12
13 RENATO CAPILI BOSI, 14 Defendant.
15
16 INTRODUCTION
17 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on Defendant Renato Capili Bosi's
18 ("Defendant") Motion for Acquittal filed May 2, 2019. Defendant is represented by Public
19 Defender Stephen P. Hattori, and the People of Guam ("the Government") are represented by
20 Assistant Attorney General J. Basil O'Mallan III. Having reviewed the pleadings, the
21 arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
22 BACKGROUND
23 On April 25, 2019, Defendant was found guilty by a jury of his peers to two counts of
24 Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), two counts of Fourth
25 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a Misdemeanor), and one count of Child Abuse (As a
26 Misdemeanor). Sentencing is currently set for July 24, 2019 at 10:00a.m.
27 On May 2, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Acquittal. On May 17, 2019, the
28 Government filed its Opposition. No Reply was filed. Pursuant to Superior Court of Guam
People v. Boss . Case No.CF0596-17 Decision and Order ¢ 1 Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(E), the Motion for Acquittal was taken under advisement on May 29,
2 2019.
3 DISCUSSION
4 Under Guam law, the Court "shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or
5 more offenses charged in the indictment ... if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
6 conviction of such offense or offenses." 8 G.C.A. § 100.10. The Court is to examine whether
7 "the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the People ... any rational trier of
8 fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." People v.
9 Song, 2012 Guam 21 'll 27. See also People v. Qui rata, 1999 Guam 6 1 9. The Court "is
10 concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight." Song, 2012 Guam 21
11 *][ 29. Accordingly, the Court "should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal when the
12 evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty. However, if there is any direct
13 evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the
14 accused, ... the case was properly submitted to the jury." Id. (internal citation and quotation
15 marks omitted).
16 Defendant moves the Court for a judgment of acquittal as to the guilty verdicts rendered
17 to the two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony) and
18 the two counts of Fourth Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a Misdemeanor). See generally,
19 Mot. Acquittal, May 2, 2019.
20 A. Whether sufficient evidence was presented to support a rational determination that Defendant committed both counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First 21 Degree Felony) beyond a reasonable doubt 22 Defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable 23 doubt that he was guilty of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct. Defendant was charged 24 with Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony) under 9 GCA § 25 25.20(a)(2), which provides that:
26 A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree if the person 27 engages in sexual contact with another person and if any of the following circumstances exist: , 28
People v. Boss Case No.CF0596-17 Decision and Order
Page 2 of 6 Ar
(2) that other person is at least fourteen (14) but less than sixteen (16)
2 years of age and the actor is a member of the same household as the 3 victim, or is related by blood or affinity to the fourth degree to the victim, or is in a position of authority over the victim and the actor used this 4 authority to coerce the victim to submit. 5 9 ~G.C.A. § 25.20(a)(2). Defendant argues that insufficient evidence was presented to show that 6 he used his position of authority over the victim to force or coerce the sexual contact. The 7 Government argues that Defendant was in a position of inherently coercive authority over the 8 victim when she resided at his home on the weekendsand that his position of authority as Pastor 9 of the Church was also coercive under the totality of the circumstances. See Opp'n at 4-7.
10 Guam's statutory definition of "force or coercion" does not specifically include actors in 11 positions of familial, custodial, supervisory or official authority of a minor, or actors who are 12 church leaders such as pastors. See 9 G.C.A. § 25.l0(a). The statutory definition does not limit 13 the definition of coercion to the enumerated examples listed in the statute, however, abuse of 14 positions of trust alone do not necessarily equate to "coercion" within the meaning of the 15 statute. See People v. Tenorio, 2007 Guam 10 'I 18. "[T ]he coercive position is only one 16 circumstance that may contribute to a finding of coercion." ld. Courts, therefore, have 17 eva lu a t ed whet her t he coer cion element is s a t is fied b y ex a mining t he "t ot a lit y of t he 18 circumstances." Tenorio, 2007 Guam 18 'I 20.
19 [F]actors indicative of forcible compulsion (or the threat of forcible compulsion) 20 include, but are not limited to, the respective ages of the victim and the accused, the respective mental and physical conditions of the victim and the accused, the 21 atmosphere and physical setting in which the incident was alleged to have taken 22 place, the extent to which the accused may have been in a position of authority, domination or custodial control over the victim, and whether the victim was under 23 duress.
24 Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Titus, 556 A.2d 425, 427 (Pa.Super.Ct. l989)).
25 In evaluating these factors, the Court finds that the coercive element is satisfied. Here, 26 the acts Defendant was found guilty of occurred when the victim was fourteen years old, and 27 Defendant was fifty-six years old; Defendant held both a pastoral and custodial role with the 28
People v. Boss Case No.CF0596-17 Decision and Order
Page 3 of 6 U r _I'll
1 victim, the victim stayed at the Defendant's home on weekends and stayed overnight; the
2 incidents occurred at Defendant's home; and testimony provided that Defendant had the power
3 to make decisions on a number of very intimate matters in the victim's life, including dating,
4 dress code, and spending time with siblings. Testimony also provided that Defendant had the
5 power to go into the victim's cell phone and read private messages, as well as order her to delete
6 certain emails and messages.
7 Although there may have been conflicting testimony as to some of these facts, such
8 conflicts and credibility determinations were for the jury to resolve. "It is not the province of
9 the court, in determining [a motion for judgment of acquittal], to resolve conflicts in the
10 evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations,
11 or to weigh the evidence, such matters are for the jury." Song, 2012 Guam 21 <II 29 (citation
12 omitted) (alteration in original). "When ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial
13 court is concerned with the. existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight. .." Id. See
14 also Qui rata, 1999 Guam 6 iI 14 ("It is the responsibility of the trier of fact, and not this court,
15 to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
16 inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts."). Therefore, the Court finds that sufficient
17 evidence was presented at trial to support a rational determination that Defendant committed
18 both counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), and will
19 not grant Defendant's Motion for Acquittal as to these charges.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Bosi (People v. Bosi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.