People v. Camacho

Opinion

tr* I § 5. 5: §-3 CLERK Q? 1 2025 f PM £ act 13 2025 OCT 4:4237 37 2 Pi; ew *"1, f :.J5T L of } ="l= 5" 'r i ¢_.8 a.i'L_,;I\, i 5 3 i '\ I

OF 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 6 )) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE CASE no. NO.CF0281-25-01 CF0281-25-01 7 PEOPLE OF OF GUAM, GUAM, )) GPD Report GPD Report No. No. 25- 25-10514 )) 8 vs. ) ) DECISION DECISION & ORDER 9 )) RE. DEFENDANT'S DEFENDANT'S MOTION MOTION IN ) LIM/NE TO PRECLUDE LIMINE 10 10 RODNEY CRISOSTOMO CAMACHO, CAMACHO, INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION OF OF EVIDENCE EVIDENCE OF DOB: 11/20/1976 DOB: 11/20/1976 ) DEFENDANT CAMACHO'S CAMACHO'S ARREST ARREST 11 11 ) RECORD/RAP SHEET SHEET AND AND BENCH BENCH )) WARRANT 12 12 Defendant. Defendant. )) _______________ )) 13 1

14 14 This matter came before matter came before the the Honorable Honorable Alberto Alberto E. Tolentino on on July July 15, 15, 2025, 2025, for a 15 15 Motion Motion Hearing. Hearing. Defendant Defendant Rodney Camacho Camacho ("Defendant") was was present present with with counsel counsel Public 16 16 Defender Renita Renita Taimanao-Munoz. Taimanao-Munoz. Assistant Attorney Attorney General General Samuel Samuel Alexander Alexander was was present present 17 17

18 18 for the the People People of ofGuam Guam ("People"). ("People").The Thecourt courtscheduled scheduled aa Motion MotionHearing Hearing totoaddress address the the

19 19 Defendant's Motion in Liming Limine to Preclude Introduction of Preclude Introduction of Evidence of ofDefendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's 20 20 Arrest Record/Rap Sheet and and Bench Bench Warrant. Warrant. Following Following the Record/Rap Sheet the hearing, hearing, the court court took took the the matter matter 21 under advisement pursuant under advisement pursuantotoSupreme SupremeCourt Courtof of Guam Guam Administrative Administrative Rule Rule 06-001, 06-001, CVR CVR 22 7.1(e)(6)(A) 7.l(e)(6)(A) and and CR1.1 CRl.1 of the the Local Local Rules Rules of ofthe the Superior Superior Court Court of ofGuam. Guam. Having Having duly duly 23 23

24 24 considered the the parties' briefings, oral oral arguments, arguments, and and the applicable law, the the court court now now issues issues

25 25 this Decision Decision and and Order GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART the Defendant's 26 Motion in in Liming Limine to to Preclude Introductionof Preclude Introduction of Evidence Evidence of of Defendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's Arrest Arrest 27 Record/Rap Sheet and Bench Warrant. 28

Decision Decision & &Order Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion in Limine Defendant's Motion Limine toPreclude Preclude Introduction Introduction of Evidence of of Defendant Camacho's Camacho's Arrest Arrest Record/Rap Record/Rap Sheet Sheet and Bench Warrant People People v. v. Camacho, CF0281-25-01 CF0281-25-01 Page Page 11 of7 BACKGROUND I

2 occurring on or about Based on events occurring about April 24, 24, 2025, 2025, the the Defendant Defendant was charged with

3 CRI MI NAL MI CRIMINAL SCHI EF (As aa 3rd MISCHIEF 3rd De gre Fe Degree lony), RECKLESS Felony); CONDUCT (As RECKLESS CONDUCT (As aa 4 4 . u . Mlsdemeanor), andtwo Misdemeanor); and two charges chargesof of ASSAULT ASSAULT (As (AsaaMlsdemeanor). Misdemeanor). See See IndIctment (May 2, Indictment (May 5 2025). On May 13, 2025). 13, 2025, 2025, Defendant Defendant Camacho Camachofiled filed his his Motion Motion for for Discovery as well as as his his 6 7 Waiver Waiver of ofSpeedy Speedy Trial. See Mot. Discovery (May 13, 13, 2025), 2025); see see also Waiver Waiver (May (May 13, 13, 2025). 2025). 7

8 At At arraignment, this court arraignment, this court was was assigned to this assigned to this matter. matter. See See Arraignment Hr'g Mims. Arraignment Hr' Mins. at at

99 2:22:40PM 2:22:40PM(May (May23, 23, 2025). 2025). 10 10 On June 13, 2025, June 13, 2025,the thecourt courtfiled filed its its Order Order granting grantinghis hisMotion Motion for Discovery. Discovery. On OnJune June 11 18, 18, 2025, DefendantCamacho 2025, Defendant Camachofiled filedtwo twomotions: motions:Motion Motion to to Compel Compel Discovery; Discovery, and Motion in 12

1133 Liming Limine to Preclude Introduction of of Evidence of ofDefendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's Arrest ArrestRecord/Rap Record/Rap Sheet Sheet

14 14 and Bench Warrant and Bench Warrant ("Motion ("Motion in Liming"). Limine"). The People filed its its Response to the Response to the Motion in in 15 15 Liming Limine on June 23, 2025. 2025. See See Response Response Liming Limine (June 23, 23, 2025). 2025). And on on June June 30, 30, 2025, 2025, the the 16 16 Defendant filed his Defendant filed his Reply Reply to the the People's People's Response. Response. See See Reply Limine Limine (June 30, 2025). (June 30, 2025). The 17

18 court subsequently scheduled this subsequently scheduled this matter matterfor for a Motion Motion Hearing Hearingon onJuly July15, 15,2025 2025. 18

19 In accordance with his accordance with his Motion Motion in Limine, the Defendant argued the Defendant argued at at the the Motion Motion Hearing

20 20 that the court that the court should should exclude exclude evidence of his arrest ofhis arrest record record and and bench bench warrant warrant as as inadmissible inadmissible 21 hearsay. See Mot. hearsay. See Mot. Hr'g Hr'g Mims. Mins. at at 4:05:45 4:05:45 .-- 08:15PM (July - 08:15PM (July 15, 2025). In In response, response, the the People 22 22 stated that itit was unnecessary stated that unnecessary toto exclude exclude such such evidence evidence before before trial just because the People because the 23 23

24 could potentially use use it wrongly. Id. at at 4:09:00 - 09:43PM. 09:43PM. After Afterhearing hearingthe the parties' parties' arguments, arguments, 24

25 25 the court took the matter under under advisement. advisement.

26 26 \\ 27 27 \\ 28

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion in in Limine Limine to to Preclude Introduction of of Evidence of of Defendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's Arrest ArrestRecord/Rap Record/RapSheet Sheetand and Bench Bench Warrant Warrant People CF0281-25-01 People v. Camacho, CF0281-25-01 Page 22 of7 off DISCUSSION 1

2 Under Guam GuamRule Ruleof of Evidence Evidence ("GRE") ("GRE") Rule Rule 801(c), 801(c), "'[h]earsay' "'[h]earsay'isisa astatement, statement, other other 3 than one than one made made by by the the declarant declarantwhile whiletestifying testifying at at the the trial trial or or hearing, hearing, offered offered in evidence to 4 4 the truth prove the truth of the matter of the matter asserted." asserted." Guam Guam R. R. Evid. 8()1(c). 801 c). ItIt isis noteworthy noteworthy that that the the Guam Guam 5 Rules of of Evidence Evidence are are modeled after the Federal Federal Rules of Evidence. Therefore, Therefore, "interpretations "interpretations 6 6

7 of of the the Federal Federal Rules Rules of ofEvidence Evidence from fromother otherjurisdictions jurisdictions are are persuasive persuasive authority." authority." People v. v. 7

88 Jesus, 2009 2009 Guam ,r 32 n.8 (internal Guam2211 (internal citations omitted).

9 A. Without Withoutthe theattached attached Arrest Arrest Record/RAP Record/RAP Sheet, Sheet, the the court court will will not notexclude exclude such such 10 10 evidence at trial evidence at trial at this time.

11 11 The Defendant seeks the the court's exclusion exclusion of ofhis his arrest arrest record record as as inadmissible inadmissible hearsay. hearsay. 12 12 Defendant Camacho Camacho argues that there are multiple hearsay that there hearsay statements statements in his arrest arrest record that that 13 13 require individual hearsay require individual hearsay exceptions exceptionsasasthey they are are statements statementsrelating relatingtoto "days "days in which which 14 14 CAMACHO CAMACHOwas wasarrested, arrested, times times CAMACHO CAMACHOwas wascriminally criminallyconvicted, convicted,sentences sentences imposed imposed on 15 15

16 16 CAMACHO, CAMACHO,and and various accusationsofofCAMACHO's various accusations CAMACHO's wrongdoing." wrongdoing." Def. Def.'s Mot. Liming Limine at 2-3

17 17 (June 18, 2025). (June 18, 2025). While While GRE GRE 803 803 states states many many exceptions to the hearsay exceptions to rule, the hearsay rule, the following 18 18 exceptions are are relevant relevant as ascited cited in inthe theDefendant's Defendant'sMotion: Motion: 19 19 (8) (8) Public Publicrecords recordsand and reports. reports. Records, Records, reports, reports, statements, statements, or data compilations, 20 20 in any any form, ofofpublic public offices officesororagencies agenciesororgovernment governmentinstrumentality, instrumentality, setting setting forth (A) (A) the the activities of the office or agency or government instrumentality, or activities of the office or agency or government instrumentality, 21 21 (B) (B)matters matters observed observed pursuant pursuant toto duty duty imposed by law as as to which which matters matters there there 22 was a duty duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters in criminal cases matters observed by police officers officers and and other other law enforcement personnel,or enforcement personnel, or(C) (C) in civil civil actions actions and and 23 proceedings and against the Government in criminal cases, factual findings proceedings and against the Government criminal cases, factual findings 24 resulting from from anan investigation investigationmade made pursuant pursuant to authority authority granted by law, unlessunless the sources of information or other circumstances information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. of trustworthiness. 25 (22) Judgment Judgment of of previous conviction. Evidence of ofaa final final judgment, judgment, entered entered after after 26 a trial or or upon a plea ofofguilty guilty(but (butnotnotupon uponaaplea pleaof ofpolo nolocontenderen), contendere), adjudging 27 27 a person guilty ofofaa crime crime punishable punishable by death death or imprisonment imprisonment in in excess excess of of one one year, to prove any year, any fact fact essential essential to to sustain sustain the the judgment, but not including, when 28 offered byby the the Government Government in in aacriminal criminalprosecution prosecution for forpurposes purposes other other than than

Decision Decision & &Order Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion in Defendant's Motion in Liming Limine to to Preclude Preclude Introduction of Evidence Introduction of Evidence of of Defendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's Arrest Arrest Record/Rap Record/Rap Sheet Sheet and Warrant and Bench Warrant People People v. v. Camacho, Camacho, CF028I-25-01 CF0281-25-0l Page Page 3 of77 impeachment, judgments judgments against against persons other than the accused. The pendency accused. The pendency of of 1 an appeal appeal may may be beshown shownbut butdoes doesnot notaffect affectadmissibility. admissibility. 2 GRE 803 (8) & (22). 803 (8) (22). In In his Motion Motion in Liming, Limine, the Defendant argues that neither of these hearsay 3

exceptions permits the exceptions permits the admission admission of of the the Defendant's R.AP RAP Sheet/Arrest Record at trial. Sheet/Arrest Record trial. See 4

5 Def.'s Mot. Liming Limine at at 2-3. In In its its Response, Response, the People People stated that itit did not intend stated that to offer intend to 6 Defendant Camacho's arrest record to to prove the truth arrest record truth of the the matter matter asserted "unless of course asserted "unless course 7 further developments further developmentsinin the the evidentiary evidentiary record record implicate implicatethat thatitit would would fall fall into into aa hearsay hearsay 8 exception." Response Response Limine at at 1. 1. The main main purpose purpose for offering offering his his arrest arrest record as evidence 9

10 10 would be would be "to show show proof proofofof Calnacho's Camacho'smotive, motive,opportunity, opportunity,intent, intent,preparation, preparation, plan, plan,

11 knowledge, identity, or absence knowledge, identity, of mistake absence of mistake or or accident." accident." Id. Id. at 1-2. However, However, the the Defendant Defendant 12 12 also argued that that his his arrest arrest and andprior priorconvictions convictions may may not be used as propensity propensity evidence when used as 13 13 those those prior convictions from approximately approximately thirty years ago do not prove any any material material element 14 14 to the crimes crimes charged charged in this this case. SeeMot. case. See Mot.Limine Limine at at 3. 15 15

16 16 Although Although the the Defendant referenceshis Defendant references his RAP RAP Sheet/Arrest Record in Sheet/Arrest Record in the the Motion in

117 7 Liming Limine as as Exhibit Exhibit A, no no such such exhibit exhibit was was attached to the attached to the Motion in Liming Limine for the the court's court's 18 18 consideration. Withoutthe consideration. Without theability ability to to review review the full arrest arrest record at issue, the court issue, the court will will not 19 19 grant its exclusion at trial at this time. time. 20 20

B. Defendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's bench bench warrant for for failure failure to to appear appear does not make it more does not 21 or less probable probable that he committed the the alleged alleged crimes crimes inin this this case. case. 22 22 In addition to the exclusion exclusion of ofDefendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's arrest arrest record, record, he he seeks seeks the court to 23

24 exclude exclude evidence evidence of of aabench bench warrant warrant issued issued in in another another case: case: CF0492-20. CF0492-20. As As authority, authority,

25 Defendant Camacho states thatthis states that thiswarrant warrantisisirrelevant; irrelevant, and andalternatively alternatively states states that thatif if relevant,

26 26 GRE 403 403 would would bar bar this this evidence evidence as as its its probative probative value value isis substantially substantially outweighed by the outweighed by the 27 danger of unfair danger of prejudice.See unfair prejudice. SeeDef. Def.'s 's Mot. Limine at at 3-4. 3--4. Specifically, Specifically, the the Defendant Defendant argues argues 28

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion in Defendant's Motion inLimine Limine to of Evidence to Preclude Introduction of Evidence of of Defendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's Arrest Arrest Record/Rap Record/Rap Sheet Sheet and Bench Warrant and Bench Warrant People People v. v. Camacho, Camacho, CF0281-25-01 CF0281-25-01 Page Page4 4 of7 of 7 1 that this bench bench warrant for a failure failure to to appear appear does does not not prove prove any any material material element element to the charges

2 and has no similarity to to the the conduct case. Id. conduct alleged in this case. at 4. Id at

.3 People do Although the People do not not explicitly explicitly argue argue that that this this bench bench warrant warrant is relevant, the court 4

5 can reasonably infer that the the People People deem it relevant based on its possible use use of the the evidence as 5

66 of Camacho's "proof of Camacho's motive, motive, opportunity, opportunity, intent, intent, preparation, preparation, plan, plan, knowledge, identity, identity, or

77 absence of mistake or accident." Response Limine Liming 2. 8 admissibility of Before reviewing the admissibility of the bench bench warrant warrant under GRE GRE 404(b), 404(b the court court 9

10 10 must review whether it is relevant under GRE 401. Under GRE 401, evidence is is relevant relevant if if it

11 11 has "any tendency to make the the existence of any existence of any fact fact that is of consequence to the determination 12 12 . . . . of the of the action action more probable or less probable than than it it would would be without the the evidence." evldence." Guam R. 13 13 401. The standard Evid. 401. standard for determining determining whether whether evidence evidence is is relevant relevant is is low; simply asking low, simply asking 14 14

15 whether whether the evidence evidence has has something something to to do do with with the the claims claims or or defenses in the case. 15

16 In CF0492-20, the the Defendant pied pled guilty to the following charges: POSSESSION OF A

17 17 SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SUBSTANCE (As (As aa 3rd Degree Felony); POSSESSION OF A 18 18 CONCEALED FIREARM (As a 3rd CONCEALED FIREARM 3rd Degree Degree Felony); Felony); and POSSESSION OF A FIREARM POSSESSION OF FIREARM 19 19 WITHOUT WITHOUT AN ANIDENTIFICATION IDENTIFICATIONCARD CARD(As a 3rd (As a 3rdDegree Degree Felony). Felony). See See People People v. v. Camacho, Camacho, 20

21 CF0492-20 (Judgment (June 16, 16, 2021)). The bench warrant warrant at issue was filed for his failure failure to

22 appear at a Progress appear at Hearing on January Progress Hearing January 17, 17, 2024. 2024. See See People People v. v. Camacho, Camacho, CF0492-20 23 23 (Progress Hr'g Mims. at 3:05:0SPM Mins. at 3:05:05PM (Jan. (Jan. 17, 17, 2024)). 2024)). As As mentioned mentioned earlier, the Defendant was earlier, the 24 charged charged in this case with CRIMINAL case with CRIMINAL MISCHIEF MISCHIEF (As (As aa3rd 3rd Degree Degree Felony); Felony); RECKLESS 25 26 CONDUCT (As aa Misdemeanor), Misdemeanor); and two charges charges of of ASSAULT ASSAULT (As (As aa Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). See 26

27 27 Indictment Indictment (May 2, 2025).

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion in Limine Defendant's Motion Limine to Preclude Preclude Introduction of Evidence of of Defendant Camacho's Camacho's Arrest Arrest Record/Rap Record/Rap Sheet Sheet and Bench Warrant People v. Camacho, CF0281-25-01 People CF0281-25-0l Page Page 5 of7 Under Under GRE 401's 401 's low lowstandard standard of of proof, proof, the the court court finds finds that that the the Defendant's Defendant's 2024 2024 1

2 2 bench warrant warrant in in a Controlled Substance and Firearm Substance and Firearm Possession Possession case case does does not not make make itit more or

3 less probable that the probable that the Defendant Defendant committed committed the the alleged conduct relating to the charges conduct relating charges in this this 4 4 2025 case. Even 2025 case. Even if this this evidence evidence was was relevant, relevant, the the court court notes notes that its admission would still be admission would 5 barred by GRE 402 402 and 404(b). GRE GRE 402 402 states states that: that: 6

7 All All relevant relevant evidence evidence isis admissible, admissible, except except as as otherwise otherwise provided provided by the the Constitution of the Constitution of the United United States, States,by bythe theOrganic OrganicAct Act of Guam, Guam, byby the the laws laws of 8 Guam, Guam, by these these Rules or other other rules prescribed by the Supreme Supreme Court of GuamGuam 9 pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. admissible.

10 10 Guam R. Evid. 402. Guam R. 402. In In this this case, case, the Defendant arguesthat Defendant argues 404(b) is GRE 404(b) thatGRE is the the other other rule rule of 11 II evidence that would prevent this this relevant relevant evidence's evidence's admissibility at at trial. GRE GRE 404(b) 404(b) states states the 12 12 following followingpurposes purposes where where evidence evidence of ofother othercrimes, crimes, wrongs, wrongs, or oracts acts are are admissible admissible at trial: trial: 13

14 14 (b) Other Other crimes, crimes, wrongs, wrongs, or or acts. acts. Evidence ofofother other crimes, crimes, wrongs, wrongs, oror acts acts is not admissible admissible to to prove the character of a person character of person in order to show that show that he acted acted in 15 15 conformity therewith. therewith. ItIt may, may, however, however,be beadmissible admissibleforforother otherpurposes, purposes, such such as as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, identity, or 16 absence absence of mistake mistake or or accident, accident, provided provided that that upon upon request request by the the accused, accused, the 17 prosecution in a criminal criminal case case shall shall provide provide reasonable reasonable notice notice in advance advance of of trial, or during during trial trial if if the the court court excuses excuses pretrial notice on good cause pretrial notice cause shown, shown, of thethe 18 18 general nature nature of any such evidence evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

19 19 Guam Guam R. Evid. Evid. 404(b). Under this 404(b Under this evidentiary evidentiary rule, rule,"[ "[e]vidence e]vidence of other other crimes crimes or acts acts is 1s 20 admissible ... 'except admissible ... 'exceptwhere where itit tends tends to to prove prove only only criminal disposition," People criminal disposition,'" People v.v. Serbian, Sablan, 21 21 22 22 2023 ,r 68 2023 Guam 44 11 68 (quoting United States v. Ayers, States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1468, 1473 1473 (9th Cir. 1991) 1991)

23 23 (citation citation omitted)) omitted)).

24 24 Although the People stated Although that itit would be offering stated that offering evidence evidence of ofthe thearrest arrest record record under under 25 25 GRE 404(b), 404(b the the People People provided provided no no notice notice of ofthis this intent intent outside outside of of its its Response. Response. Therefore, 26 evidence evidence of of the the Defendant's Defendant's bench bench warrant warrant in in CF0492-20 CF0492-20 would would have have been been inadmissible inadmissible 27

28 without reasonable notice under GRE 404(lb). 404(b ). 28

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion in in Liming Limine to Preclude Introduction of of Evidence of of Defendant Defendant Camacho's Camacho's Arrest ArrestRecord/Rap Record/Rap Sheet Sheet and and Bench Bench Warrant People People v. v. Camacho, Camacho, CF0281-25-01 CF0281-25-0l Page 6 of7 of 7 CONCLUSION

2 For reasons set forth above, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN

3 PART the Defendant's Motion in Limine to Preclude Introduction of Evidence of Defendant 4 Camacho's Arrest Record/Rap Sheet and Bench Warrant. Specifically, the court GRANTS the 5 exclusion of Defendant Camacho's Bench Warrant issued in CF0492-20 but DENIES the 6

7 exclusion of Defendant Camacho's Arrest Record/Rap Sheet.

9 A Pre-Trial Conference is scheduled before this court on November 12, 2025, at IO 9:00AM.

12 OCT 1.3 2025 SO ORDERED this - - ~ -------- 13

17 HONORAl{LE NtbERTo~-E. TOLENTINO ,, ··"- ,,,.· •·· . " .

18 Judge, Superfof'G0.urt_9f Guam

SERVICE V!A EMAIII. 24 I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to: 25

27 Datel~J3~ime: 4LUt R ·t indlau. 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Preclude Introduction of Evidence of Defendant Camacho' s ArrestRecord/Rap Sheet and Bench Warrant People v. Camacho, CF0281-25-01 Page 7 of7