People v. Camacho, L.I.
This text of People v. Camacho, L.I. (People v. Camacho, L.I.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
I\ %l`§L¥,,.L» 51_;i>ERlE§°"€§4.3URT GFEi1.9~»%1 ' .| I 2520 am 2b p/ms: 55 QLEM et be
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. cM0539-18
vs. DECISION AND ORDER
LARRY IGNACIO CAMACHO, I Defendant.
INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on Defendant Larry Ignacio Camacho's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Due to Civil Compromise ("Motion for Civil
Compromise") filed March 6, 2020. Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2018, Defendant was charged with Family Violence (As a
Misdemeanor) and Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor). (Magistrate's Con pl., Nov. 13, 2018). These charges stem from allegations that Defendant, on or about November 12, 2018, woke up his wife, Ms. Octavia P. David, by banging and slamming on things in their house, causing their two year old baby to cry. (Deal. of Brendlynn O. Joseph, Magistrate's Con pl., Nov. 13, 2018). Ms. Octavia got her cell phone to call for help, but Defendant grabbed the phone from her and threw it to the floor, breaking it. Id. Ms. Octavia stated that as she was standing near the open door while calling for her son so that they could get out of the house, Defendant ran up to
l People v. Camucha Case No. CM0539-18 Decision and Order
Page 1 off I »
I
1 her and pushed her, causing her to fly out of the house onto the concrete, scraping her knee. Id. 2 Ms. Octavia got up ...Gd ran to the street asking for help. Id. GPD Officers who responded to the 3 scene observed an abrasion and bleeding on Ms. Octavia's knee and a broken cell phone. Id. 4 Jury Selection and Trial in this matter was most recently set for April 15, 2020, with a 5 Pre-Trial Conference on March 17, 2020; On March 6, 2020, Defendant tiled the instant motion
6 to dismiss the second charge of Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor) on the basis of civil
7 compromise. Attached to the Motion is Ms. Octavia's Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss X Due to Civil Compromise.
9 A Motion Hearing was set for March 17, 2020, the same day as the Pre-Trial Conference, 10 however, due to the closure of the Guam Judicial Center to the public because of public health
11 concerns arising from COVID-19 (coronavirus pandemic),1 the hearing did not take place and 12 Jury Selection and Trial will be rescheduled to a later date. The Court has not received any 13 written response to the Motion from the People of Guam. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the Second Charge of Criminal Mischief (As a 16 Misdemeanor)2 because he and the alleged victim have reached a civil compromise under 8 17 G.C.A. § 80.90. See generally,Mot. Civil Compromise, Mar. 6, 2020. 18 Under Guam law: 19
20 l Because of public health concerns arising from the COVID-19 (coronavirus pandemic), I Mega 'h¢igan Gudhan has issued several executive orders to stem the spread of the virus: Executive Order No. 2020-03, declaring a State 21 of Emergency, Executive Order No. 2020-04, closing non-essential government operations through March30, 2020, 22 Executive Order No. 2020-05, prohibiting public gatherings and mandating social isolation, Executive Order No. 2020-06, extending the suspension of non-essential govemrnent offices by an additional fourteen days, and Executive 23 Order No. 2020-09, extending the public health emergency until May5, 2020. Pursuant to these orders, the Supreme Court of Guam issued Administrative Order No. ADM20-210, closing the Judiciary of Guam for all but essential 24 services until March 30, 2020, Administrative Order No. ADM20-214, extending the closure until April 15, 2020, and Administrative Order'No. ADM20-220, further extending the closure until May 6, 2020. 25
26 2 The Court notes that Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise first sets forth that he is moving to dismiss both the charges ofFarnily Violence (As a Misdemeanor) and Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor). See Mot. Civil 27 Compromise at 1. HoweVer, the body of Defendant's Motion and the conclusion only refer to the charge ofCriminal Mischief(As a Misdemeanor). Therefore, the Court will only address this matter as to the Second Charge ofCriminal 28 Mischief (As a Misdemedhor). I
People v. Camacho Case No. CM0539-1 s Decision and Order
Page 2 off 1 I
(a) When the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which 1 is not a felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has 2 a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as provided by this 3 Section. 1
4 (b) If the person injured appears before, or tiles his declaration in, the court in which the criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that he has 5 received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the costs incurred, 6 order the criminal action dismissed.
7 (c) A dismissal under this Section is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. 8 8 G.C.A. § 80.90. 9 Here, Defendant is charged with a misdemeanor, not a felony. Further, the alleged victim, 10 Ms. Octavia, has a remedy by civil action. Lastly, Ms. Octavia has filed an affidavit with the 11
Court. In her Affidavit, Ms. Octavia acknowledges that she has received satisfaction for her 12 injury. See Affidavit 11 8 (Mot. Civil Compromise), Mar. 6, 2020. Accordingly, the Court is 13 satisfied that the requirements of section 80.90 are met. The Court must now determine whether 14 it should exercise its discretion to dismiss the criminal charge in this matter. 15 Section 80.90 is based on California Penal Code sections 1377 and 1378, see 8 G.C.A. § 16 80.90, Note, and thus California law is persuasive in the absence of any compelling reason to 17 deviate. See Zurich Ins. (Guam), Inc. v. Santos, 2007 Guam 23 'll. In California, the legislative 18 purpose of civil compromise is to remove from criminal prosecution offenses for which there is 19 an adequate civil remedy instead of "subj eating the accused to criminal sanctions for the welfare 20 of society in general." People v. Stephen,227 Cal. Rptr. 380, 388 (Cal. App. 1986). Appropriate 21 factors for the Court to consider include: (1) whether the civil injury was coextensive with the 22 criminal violation, (2) whether the circumstances were such that through private settlement the 23 injury to the public was fully vindicated, and (3) whether the victim's settlement agreement was 24 made voluntarily. People v.Moulton, 182 Cal. Rptr. 761, 767-68 (Cal. App. 1982), 25 As to the first factor, the Court finds that the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal 26 violation, which is apparent from the availability of an adequate civil remedy. In her Affidavit, 27 Ms. Octavia states that she has received satisfaction for her injury and wishes to compromise this 2s
People v. Camacho i Case No. CM0539-1 s Decision and Order
Page 3 of 4 I
1 c as e c ivilly. (Affidaivit 1] 8). As to the s ec o nd fac to r, the s erio us o f the injury and the
2 circumstances of the offense are relevant. See Moulton, 182 Cal. Rptr. At 768. The Court notes I 3 that only the criminal mischief charge is being moved to be dismissed through civil compromise,
4 and that the family violence charge will remain. Additionally, in this type of situation where the 5 parties may share or have shared household expenses, there is no public injury in criminal 6 mischief as it involved a broken cell phone. As to the third and last factor, the Court does not 7 have any indication that the civil compromise was entered involuntarily. Since this incident s occurred, the parties have divorced. See Mot. Civil Compromise at 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Camacho, L.I., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-camacho-li-superctguam-2020.