People v. Castro

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: September 19, 2023
• Docket: CM0027-23
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2023 SEP 19 PM 4: 53 2 CLERH OF COURT 3 ~ 8y =--·----·------·~-',--'--- 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0027-23 6 ) GPD Report No.: 23-02169 ) 7 vs. ) 8 ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 9 FOR THE ALLEGATION IS DE MINIMIS ) 10 NATHAN EDWARD CASTRO, ) DOB: 12/17/1981 ) 11 _______________ )

12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Maria T. Cenzon on June 21, 2023, for a 14 hearing on the Defendant Nathan Edward Castro's ("Defendant"f"Motion to Dismiss for the 15

16 Allegation is De Minimis Re: 9 GCA § 7 .94" (the "Motion"). Defendant was present in person at

17 the hearing with counsel William Pole, and Assistant Attorney General Christine Tenorio 18 appeared on behalf of the People. Following the hearing, the Court took the matter under 19 advisement pursuant to CVR 7.l(e)(6)(D) of the LOCAL RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 20 OF GUAM and Administrative Rule Nos. 06-001, and now issues this Decision and Order 21

22 DENYING, IN PART, and GRANTING, IN PART, the Defendant's Motion.

23 FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24 Defendant is charged with five counts of Child Abuse (As a Misdemeanor) in violation 25 of9 GCA § 31.30(a)(l), as follows: 26

27 People ofGuam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 1 oflO Count One On or about the 7th day of January, 2023, in Guam, NATHAN EDWARD 2 CASTRO, did commit the offense of CHILD ABUSE (As a Misdemeanor), in that while having a child, namely L.C. (DOB: 3 years old) in his care and custody, 3 subjected said child to cruel mistreatment, in violation of9 GCA §§31.30(a)(l). 4 Count Two 5 On or about the 11th day of January, 2023, in Guam, NATHAN EDWARD CASTRO, did commit the offense of CHILD ABUSE (As a Misdemeanor), in 6 that while having a child, namely L.C. (DOB: 3 years old) in his care and custody, subjected said child to cruel mistreatment, in violation of 9 GCA §§3 l.30(a)(l). 7

8 Count Three On or about the 19th day of January, 2023, in Guam, NATHAN EDWARD 9 CASTRO, did commit the offense of CHILD ABUSE (As a Misdemeanor), in 10 that while having a child, namely L.C. (DOB: 3 years old) in his care and custody, subjected said child to cruel mistreatment, in violation of9 GCA §§31.30(a)(l). 11 Count Four 12 ·on or about the 23rd day of January, 2023, in Guam, NATHAN EDWARD 13 CASTRO, did commit the offense of CHILD ABUSE (As a Misdemeanor), in that while having a child, namely L.C. (DOB: 3 years old) in his care and custody, 14 subjected said child to cruel mistreatment, in violation of9 GCA §§31.30(a)(l). 15 Count Five 16 On or about the 23rd day of January, 2023, in Guam, NATHAN EDWARD CASTRO, did commit the offense of CHILD ABUSE (As a Misdemeanor), in 17 that while having a child, namely R.J.C. (DOB: 7 years old) in his care and custody, subjected said child to cruel mistreatment, in violation of 9 GCA 18 §§31.30(a)(l). 19

20 Magistrate's Comp!. (Jan. 25, 2023)(collectively referred to herein as the "Charges"). 21 With respect to the facts which constitute the basis for the Charges, the Declaration in 22 support of the Complaint yields the following: 23

24 Count One (January 7, 2023): Video Footage showed Defendant strike L.C. (3

25 years old) on the face. 26

27 People of Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 2 oflO Count Two (January 11, 2023): Video Footage showed Defendant strike L.C. (3

2 years old) on the face.

3 Count Three (January 19, 2023): Video Footage showed Defendant push over 4 L.C.'s (3 years old) highchair, causing L.C. to fall. 5 Count Four (January 23, 2023): Video Footage shows Defendant pushed L.C.'s 6 (3 years old) face down on the couch and strike L.C. 's lower body with what 7

8 appeared to be a slipper. According to minor R.J.C. (7 years old), Defendant

9 spanked L.C. (3 years old) with a remote control, which made L.C. cry. 10 Count Five (January 23, 2023): Minor victim R.J.C. (7 years old) stated that 11 Defendant spanked his feet two times with a black slipper. 12

13 Affid. of Probable Cause (Jan. 25, 2023).

14 In his Motion, the Defendant does not deny the actions captured in video footage or even 15 as reported by the minor R.J.C., but argues that these acts do not constitute the crime of Child 16 Abuse because they are justified under 9 GCA § 7.94 (a), and should, therefore, be dismissed as 17 de minimis under 9 GCA § 7 .67. Defendant concedes that, while his actions may be grounds for 18

19 civil liability through a CPS investigation or action, Defendant is not criminally liable under the

20 applicable Guam law, 9 G .C.A. § 31.30(a)(l ). In support of his motion, Defendant filed certain 21 pages of discovery (police reports) under Seal, which the Court has reviewed in aid to its 22 determination herein. 23 The People oppose Defendant's Motion, arguing that the force used by the Defendant is 24

25 "either intended to cause or created a substantial risk of causing extreme pain" to a three-year-

26 old, who was a minor under Defendant's care. See People's Opposition to Dismiss (Mar. 20, 27 People a/Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 3 oflO 2023). The People concede that the factual allegations upon which Count 5 is based are

2 "substantially less serious than Counts 1-4." Id. The People also submitted, under Seal, a portion

3 of the police reports, which the Court has also reviewed in making its determination. 4 LEGAL ANALYSIS 5 In determining whether Defendant's acts are de minimis under 9 GCA § 7.94, the Court 6

turns first to the Child Abuse statute under which Defendant has, been charged. 9 GCA § 7

8 31.30(a)(l) provides, in relevant part, as follows: "(a) A person is guilty of child abuse when: (1)

9 he subjects a child to cruel mistreatment." 9 GCA § 3 l.30(a)(l). The Guam statute does not 10 specifically define "cruel mistreatment" under the child abuse statute; however, Defendant argues II that such an illegal act would require a showing of "extreme pain" or "gross degradation" under 12

13 9 GCA § 7.94, which is a statute permitting the use of physical force by a parent or guardian

14 against a minor child under certain circumstances. 15 9 GCA § 7. 94 provides justification for the use of force by a person "having special care, 16 duty or responsibility for another" and provides, in relevant part, as follows: 17 The use of force upon another person is justified under any of the following 18 circumstances: (a) a parent, guardian or other person responsible for the care and 19 supervision of a minor less than eighteen years of age, or a person acting at the direction of such person, may use necessary force upon the minor for the purpose 20 of safeguarding or promoting his welfare, including prevention and punishment of his misconduct. The force used for this purpose must not be intended to cause 21 or known to create a substantial risk of causing extreme pain or gross 22 degradation . ... ~

23 9 GCA § 7. 94 (emphasis added). A plain reading of the statute justifying the use of any physical 24 force against a minor requires that such force be "necessary force . . . for the purpose of 25 safeguarding or promoting his welfare." As such, the first inquiry before the Court is whether the 26

27 People of Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 4 oflO force used by the Defendant, a 41-year-old male, against a 3-year-old child constitutes such

2 "necessary force . . . for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting [L. C. 's] welfare." Does

3 "striking" a 3-year-old in the face (January 9 and January 11); pushing a 3-year- old's highchair 4 while he is in it, thereby causing the child to fall (January 19); pushing a 3-year-old's face down 5 on a couch and striking the child's lower body with a slipper (January 23) and spanking a 3-year- 6

7 old with a remote control causing the child to cry (January 23) all "necessary force ... for the

8 purpose of safeguarding or promoting [L.C. 's] welfare"? Defendant claims that all of these acts

9 are justified under Section 7. 94, but he fails to establish how they constituted the "necessary 10 force" contemplated by 9 GCA § 7.94. In reviewing the police report sections filed under Seal, 11 nothing therein supports a finding of such "necessary force." 12

13 Defendant then argues that any acts that fall outside of the provisions of Section 7.94 must

14 be shown to have been committed with the intent to cause, or knowledge that the acts would create 15 a substantial risk of causing, "extreme pain or gross degradation." However, Defendant 16 misapprehends what Section 7.94 provides. Indeed, a plain reading of this Section grants parents, 17 guardians and those charged with the care of minors, the ability to employ physical responses 18

19 which are "necessary" to ensure the safety and welfare of these minors. On the extreme end of

20 such physical force, which is clearly not permitted by this statute, is that which creates a 21 substantial risk of causing extreme pain or gross degradation. However, just because the physical 22 restraint or force does not result in such extreme pain or gross degradation (or any marks on the 23

24 body, as Defendant proffers), Section 7.94 does not grant a wholesale justification of the use of

25 physical force on a child when it is not also "necessary." With respect to intent, therefore, 26 Defendant correctly notes that he must be shown to have acted intentionally, knowingly or 27 People of Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 5 oflO recklessly in the conduct as charged. Reply at p. 3 (citing to 9 GCA § 4.40). With respect to this

2 Motion, the Court need not pass on the question of Defendant's intent, but must assume that the

3 acts were committed as charged- regardless of intent. State v. Zarrilli, 216 N.J. Super. 231, 236, 4 523 A.2d 284, 286 (Law. Div.), affd, 220 N.J. Super. 517, 532 A.2d 1131 (App. Div. 5 1987)("When a de minimis motion is addressed it must be assumed that the conduct charged 6 actually occurred."). Thus, it is for the jury, at trial, to determine whether the People satisfied its 7

8 burden of proof as to the intent of the Defendant.

9 We then tum to the question of whether the acts in which the Defendant is alleged to have 10 engaged are de minimis under 9 GCA § 7.67. If the Court finds these acts are de minimis under II this statute, then the Court may dismiss the charges against the Defendant. Section 7.67 provides 12

13 as follows:

14 9 GCA § 7.67. Appropriateness of Prosecution. 15 The court shall dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to t/1e nature of t/1e conduct 16 charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant's conduct: 17 (a) Was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negated by 18 the person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the 19 law defining the offense;

20 (b) Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the 21 condemnation of conviction; or 22 (c) Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as 23 envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense. The court shall not dismiss 24 a prosecution under this Subsection without filing a written statement of its reasons.

27 People of Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 6 oflO 9 GCA § 7.67 (emphasis added)(referred to herein as the "de minimis statute"). The de minimis

2 statute directs the trial court to dismiss a prosecution if it finds that the defendant's conduct falls

3 within at least one of the three distinct circumstances. Guam v. Perez, 2004 Guam 4, ,r,r 6 - 9. In 4 considering this question, the Court should assume all factual allegations as true and determine 5 whether the alleged conduct exposes society to a risk of harm sufficient to warrant conviction. Id. 6 at ,r 16. Moreover, the Court is tasked with "focusing on objective factors directly related to the 7

8 Defendant's conduct and, in particular, the consequences for the societal interests involved." Id.

9 at ,r 12 (citing to State v. Zarrilli, 523 A.2d 284 (N.J.Super. Ct. Law Div.1987), affd, 532 A.2d 10 1131 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1987). 11 The Guam Supreme Court adopted the New Jersey court's guidance in Zarrilli, which 12

13 eloquently defined the question that the Guam trial courts should answer in determining whether

14 an offense is "truly trivial": 15 The protection to which society is entitled is provided by a dismissal only when the 16 offense is truly 'trivial.' Consequently, it is public risk that determines what is trivial. The one question to be asked and answered in response to a de minimis 17 motion is therefore: 18 What is the risk of harm to which society is exposed by defendant's conduct? 19 Perez at ,r 12 (quoting Zarrilli)(emphasis added). 20 In determining what factors to consider in answering this question, the Guam Supreme 21

22 Court noted consideration of: (a) circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense, (b)

27 People of Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 7 oflO the existence of contraband, (c) the amount and value of property involved, (d) the use or threat

2 of violence and (e) the use of weapons. Perez at 1 12. 1

3 The Court now applies these.factors as laid out in Perez and Zarrilli: 4 a. Circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense. 5 There is no explanation given by the Defendant in his moving papers relating to the 6 circumstances surrounding the striking of three-year-old L.C.'s face twice on January 9 and 11; 7

8 or pushing L.C. 's highchair on January 19, causing L.C. to fall; or pushing L.C. 's face down on

9 the couch and striking L.C. 's lower body with what appeared to be a slipper; or spanking L.C. 10 with a remote control, which made L.C. cry. However, applying the justification for "necessary II force" standard in 9 GCA § 7.94, it would appear that there is no rational or reasonable 12

13 explanation for the use of physical force to ensure L.C. 's welfare and safety. Moreover, in order

14 to find Defendant's acts to have been de minimis, the Court must first make "factual 15 determinations with respect to the conduct charged and tl,e attendant circumstances." Perez at 16 ,i 6 (citing State v. Carmichael, 53 P.3d 214, 218 (Haw. 2002)). Because the Defendant has .not 17 explained his actions or the attendant circumstances that might have justifed his actions, the Court 18

19 cannot so find as Defendant urges; therefore, this factor weighs against finding Defendant's

20 actions de minimis or that there was little risk of harm to society by such actions. 21 II 22 II 23

1 25 The Guam Supreme Court noted that Zarrilli excluded from consideration any speculation because "every trivia offense can be seen as the first step toward serious misconduct. ... Suspicion that future misconduct may occur is no 26 a basis for a charge of present misconduct in our system of justice." Zarrilli at p. 238 . The New Jersey court als excluded deterrence because it is a sentencing concern and does not measure triviality. Id 27 People of Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 8 oflO b. The existence of contraband.

2 There is no allegation that contraband was involved. Therefore, the Court finds that this

3 factor weighs in finding the risk of harm to society to be lower where no illicit drugs, alcohol or 4 other substances were also used. 5 c. The amount and value of property involved. 6 There is no allegation of property damage in this case. This factor weighs neither for nor 7

8 against the risk of harm to society.

9 d. The use of weapons. 10 There were no allegations that the Defendant used a weapon against L.C. or R.J.C., 11 however, it is alleged that the Defendant struck the 3-year-old on the face twice, struck him/her 12

13 with a remote control, pushed the highchair on which the child was on and causing him to fall.

14 So, while there were no weapons alleged to have been used by the Defendant in this case, the 15 actions of a 41-year-old as against a 3-year-old in this case when not deemed to fall within 16 "necessary force" based upon what has been presented to the Court in the instant Motion, weigh 17 in favor of finding a high risk of harm to society by such actions. Indeed, it has been determined 18

19 that any item may be used as a "weapon" if used with enough force against an individual and,

20 most certainly, against a three-year-old child. 21 It is noteworthy that the court in Zarilli found that "other factors may appear in a given 22 case" that might establish a finding of risk of harm to society. In this case, the amount of force 23

24 that may have been used by the Defendant in each of these alleged instances will impact the risk

25 of harm to society by allowing unnecessary force to be used against minors.

27 People of Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 9 of 10 Based upon the Court's analysis of the de minimis factors set forth herein and considering

2 the information provided to it by the Defendant in support of his Motion, the Court DENIES

3 Defendant's Motion with respect to Counts One through Four involving L.C .. However, the 4 Defendant may be able to justify the use of "necessary force" at trial by invoking 9 GCA § 7.94. 5 On the other hand, applying these same factors to Count Five, relating to spanking 7-year- 6 old R.J.C. 's feet twice with a black slipper, the Court finds that, although reasons or context were 7

8 not given for committing this act upon R.J.C., this act constitutes a very low risk of harm to

9 society. Consequently, Count Five is DISMISSED as de minimis under 9 GCA § 7.67. 2 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the above reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for the Allegation is De 12

13 Minimis is DENIED as to Counts One through Count Four and GRANTED as to Count Five.

14 SEP 1 g 2023 SO ORDERED this - - - - - - - - 15

17 HON ORA :LE.MARIA:T. CENZON 18 / ·- , - 1 ~·

Judge, Su~-~~r ~_pu~! of Guam :. _,,,--- / - 19 - ' /,-... __/ / -.

24 2 The Court will not apply the justification under 9 GCA § 7.94 here b~cause no context or reason was given by th 25 Defendant for spanking R.J.C.'s feet with the slippers. However, in light of the factors set forth in Perez and Zarrilli the Court finds these acts to be within a customary license or tolerance or that this act did not cause or threaten th 26 harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law against Child Abuse, or did so only to an extent too trivial to warran the condemnation of the Defendant or his conviction thereunder. 27 People a/Guam vs. Nathan Edward Castro 28 Criminal Case No. CM0027-23 Decision and Order re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 10 oflO