People v. Castro

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: March 22, 2022
• Docket: CF0504-21
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

~, Fl L .E D SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 1

2 2n22nAR 22 PM 2: as CLER 3

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0504-21 GPD Report No. 21-24929 9 v. 10 DECISION AND ORDER JOSEPH MARC THOMAS DUENAS CASTRO, JR. DENYING DEFENDANT'S 11 (aka Joseph Marc Castro, Jr.) MOTION FOR BILL OF (aka Joseph Mark Thomas Due fas Castro Jr.) PARTICULARS 12 (aka Joseph Mark Castro, Jr.) 13 (aka Joseph M.T.D. Castro) (aka Joey), 14 DOB: 06/04/1990 15 Defendant. 16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on January 12, 2022 for

18 hearing on Defendant Joseph Marc Thomas Due fas Castro, Jr.'s (aka Joseph Marc Castro, Jr.'s)

19 (aka Joseph Mark Thomas Due fas Castro Jr.'s) (aka Joseph Mark Castro, Jr.'s) (aka Joseph M.T.D.

20 Castro's) (aka Joey's) ("Defendant's") Motion for Bill of Particulars ("Motion"). Assistant

21 Attorney General Sean Brown represents the People, and AssistaNt Public Defender Jocelyn Roden

22 represents Defendant. Having duly considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable

ii law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion.

BACKGROUND 25 On October 13, 2021, Defendant was arrested and charged with Charge One: First Degree

26 Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 151 Degree Felony) (Two Counts), and Charge Two: Second Degree

27 Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1 sl Degree Felony) (Four Counts). See Indictment (Oct. 21, 2021).

28 These allegations stem from two separate incidents supposedly happening sometime in 2019.

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars CF0504-21, People of Guam v. Joseph Castro, Jr. Page 1 of 3 1 On November 18, 2021, Defendant filed his Motion for Bill of Particulars. Defendant

2 [moved for a Bill of Particulars, arguing that the time frame contained in the Indictment (Jan. 1, 2019

3 [through Dec. 31, 2019) is too vague to properly prepare a defense against. See Motion at 2 (Nov.

4 118, 2021). Defendant requested more specific information pinpointing the days/times of the alleged

5 incidents. L at 2.

6 On November 22, 2021, the People filed their Opposition ro Defendant's Motion ("People's

7 ]Opposition"). The People argued the Indictment was as specific as it could be, and that it properly

8 agave Defendant notice of the charges against him. at 3-4.

9 The Court held a hearing on January 12, 2022. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the

10 I Court took the matter under advisement.

11 DISCUSSION

12 8 G.C.A. § 55.30 provides:

13 Whether or not an indictment or information complies with § 55. 10, if it fails to specify the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare 14 his defense, the court may, on motion of the defendant, require the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a clarification of the pleading containing such 15 particulars as may be necessary for the preparation of the defense. 16 The Guam Supreme Court has previously determined that Indictments narrowing a charge's 17 timeframe down ro several months, are specific enough to enable the Defendant to prepare a 18 defense. See People v. Salas, 2000 Guam at *][22 (ruling that an Indictment containing an alleged 19 time frame of over two months does not prejudice the Defendant's right to prepare a defense). 20 The Guam Supreme Court cited to the 9th Circuit case,People v. Atoigue, 36 F.3d 1103 (9111 21 Cir. 1994), to establish that time was not an essential factor when the victim can point to a time 22 frame in which she was repeatedly raped. at '][16. The Atoigue Court found that indictments are 23 specific enough so long as they place the illegal acts within an identifiable time frame, even if a 24 specific date cannot be alleged. See Atoigue, 36 F.3d at 6. 25 Courts have also been more lenient regarding the specificity of dates in an indictment when 26 the crimes involve child victims. SeeSafe v. Hoban, 738 S.W.2d 536, 541 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987) 27 (finding that an indictment containing a 15-month charging window sufficiently gave the defendant 28 notice of the child sex charge against him). This is because young victims are understandably

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars CF0504-21, People of Guam v. Joseph Castro, Jr. Page 2 of 3 l hesitant to immediately report sex crimes, and delayed reporting makes it difficult for them to

2 remember precisely when the abuse occurred.

3 It is clear that this Indictment does sufficiently specify the particulars of the offenses charged

4 and enables the Defendant to prepare a defense. The Defendant was afforded adequate notice of the

5 charges against him, as the Indictment states the Defendant committed two sexual assaults, against

6 a specific victim, during 2019. There would be great difficulty in having the victim state the exact

7 date that each of these assaults occurred, as the crime was indicted two years after the alleged acts.

8 The 12-month charging window contained in the Indictment fits firmly within the case law, and is

9 as specific as it could be given the victim's age and delayed reporting.

10 CONCLUSION ll For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.

12 March 22, 2022 13 IT IS SO ORDERED this

17 HONORABLE ALBERTO c. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 18

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars CF0504-21, People of Guam v. Joseph Castro, Jr. Page 3 of 3