People v. Cepeda

Opinion

FI LED 1 1 CLERK OF COURT G? CGURT 2 20214 Aus28 202~ AUG 28 @§<%u= 30 AM II= 30 3 su§2§§%3? SUPERIOR CGURT COURT 4 IN THE SUPERIOR go: §;;§f;; SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM OF GUAM

5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0159-24 6 GPD Report No. 24-05369 v. 7

8 ALLAN JUNIOR CEPEDA, DECISION AND ORDER DOB: 01/31/1991 01/31/1991 DENYING DENYING IN-PART, 9 & GRANTING IN-PART Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE 10 10

11 11 INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before before the Honorable Alberto C. C. Lamorena, Lamorena, III IIIon onJune June 7, 7, 2024 2024 for for hearing hearing 13 13 on Allan Junior JuniorCepeda's Cepeda's("Defendant's") ("Defendant's") Motion in Limine ("Motion"). Motion in Assistant Attorney ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney General General 14 14 Leta Womack Leta Womackrepresents represents the the People, People, and and Attorney Attorney Juhyeong Juhyeong Park Park represents represents Defendant. Defendant. Having Having duly

15 15 considered the considered the parties' parties' briefs, briefs, oral arguments, and oral arguments, and the the applicable applicable law, law, the Court now the Court now issues issues the the 16 16 following Decision following Decisionand and Order Order and and D E NIES I E S I N - P A R T AND A N D GRANTS G R A N T S IN-PART the Defendant's I N - P A R T the Defendant's

17 17 Motion.

18 BACKGROUND 19 19 Defendant is Defendant is charged charged with with Possession Possession of ofaa Schedule Schedule IIII Controlled ControlledSubstance Substance (as 3rd Degree (as aa 3rd Degree

20 Felony) following Felony) followingaatraffic trafficstop stop on on March March 7, 7, 2024. 2024. See See Indictment Indictment (Mar. 15, 15, 2024). 2024). 21 The sstop was initiate initiatedd by b y Guam Gu am Police P olic e Department De p ar tm e nt("GPD") Officer ("GP D") Offic Martin Oliv e Mar Oliva, w who 22 noticed Defendant driving aa vehicle vehicle with with expired expired registration. registration. See Court Recording Recording at at 1:57:20pm- 1:57:20pm- 23 1:58:00pm (Jun. 1:58:00pm (Jun. 7, 7, 2024). 2024). During the the traffic traffic stop, stop, Defendant Defendant informed informed Officer Oliva that Officer Oliva that he he was on 24 probation. Id. at 2:01 :00pm. Officer 2:01:00pm. OfficerOliva Olivasubsequently subsequently conducted conducted aa pat-down pat-down of of Defendant Defendant and and 25 allegedly found allegedly found aa glass glass pipe coated with with methamphetamine residue residue inside inside Defendant's Defendant's pocket. pocket. Id. at at 26 2:04:40pm-2:07:00pm.

27- Three passengers passengers were were inside inside Defendant's Defendant's vehicle; vehicle, Elizabeth Elizabeth Denison Denison ("Denison"), ("Denison"), Ruth Ruth 28 Matagolai ("Matagolai"), andShawn ("Matagolai"), and Shawn Camacho Camacho ("Camacho"). ("Camacho").During Duringthe thestop, stop, Matagolai Matagolai consented consented

Decision Decision and and Order Denying In-Part, In-Part, & & Granting Granting In-Part In-PartDefendant's Defendant's Motion Motion in Limine Liming CF0159-24,People People of ofGuam Guam v. v. Allan Allan Junior Junior Cepeda Cepeda Page 11 of of9 e r

1 to a search of the vehicle after informing informing Officer Officer Oliver that her Oliva that her daughter daughter was was renting renting the the vehicle. vehicle. Id. L

2 at 2:02:00pm-2:02:40pm. 2:02:00pm-2:02:40pm. Although a full search of the vehicle yielded no new evidence, evidence, several several 3 resealable bags small resealable bags were confiscated confiscated having having been visibly located located at Defendant's Defendant's feet. feet. Id. at 4 1 :59:00pm. l:59:00pm. Both Defendant and Denison (whom GPD GPD also also found found can'ying carrying a methamphetamine pipe)were 5 pipe) werearrested. arrested. 6 On May 7, 2024, Defendant filed his Motion in Limine, Limine, seeking seeking tO to exclude several pieces of 7 evidence from evidence from presentation presentation during during trial. trial. Specifically, Defendant seeks Specifically, Defendant seeks to to exclude exclude Denison, Denison, 8 Matagolai, & Camacho from testifying, Matagolai, testifying, claiming their their testimony is is irrelevant. irrelevant. See Motion at 2-4 9 (May 7, 2024). 2024). Defendant also also seeks seeks to toexcludethe_following excludethefollowing evidence evid7nce as as hearsay: the the GPD GPD Report, 10 'Denison's statements 10 statements contained contained within within the the GPD Report, Report, and Defendant's Records Records of of Arrest Arrest and 11 11 Prosecution ("RAP sheet"). Q Id.atat4-7. 4-7. Lastly, Lastly,Defendant Defendantseeks seekstoto exclude excludefield field drug drug tests tests conducted 12 12 on his his aalleged methamphetamine lleged metha mpheta pipe, cla claiming exper expert witness witness testimony testimony is rrequired ed for its its 13 13 admission. Id. admission. Q atat 7-8. 7-8. 14 14 On May 21, 2024, the People filed filed their Opposition Opposition to to Motion Motion ("Opposition"). ("Opposition"). The People

15 15 claim Denison, Matagolai, and Camacho should should all all be permitted to testify because their testimony is 16 16 relevant and carries-probative probative value. See Opposition at 3-4 (May (May 21, 21, 2024). 2024). The People also claim

17 Defendant's efforts 17 to exclude the GPD Report, efforts to Report, Denison's statements statements contained within the GPD 18 18 Report, and and Defendant's Defendant's RAP sheet are are premature. premature. Id. Q atat 4-6. 4-6. Lastly, Lastly, the the People People claim expert witness 19 19 testimony is not required required to to admit admit the the field field drug drugtests. tests. Id. Q at at 6-8. 20 . On May 28, 2024, Defendant filed filed his his Reply Reply to to Opposition Opposition ("Reply"). ("Reply"). Defendant rehashed

21 his argument that Denison, Denison, Matagolai, Matagolai, and and Camacho Camacho should be be excluded excluded from from testifying testifying on relevance relevance

22 grounds. See Reply at 1-3 (May 28, 28, 2024) 2024)... Defendant Defendant also also reiterated his claims claims that the GPD Report, 23 statements contained within the GPD Report, and'Defendant's RAP RAP sheet sheet are are inadmissible hearsay. . - 24 Id. at 3-5. 24-5. Lastly, Lastly,Defendant Defendant claims claims expert expert witness witness testimony testimony is is required required for for the the admission of of field drugtest 25 dog testr results. esults. Id. at 6-8.

26 The Court Court held a hearing on June 7, 2024. After hearing the arguments arguments of of the parties, the Court 27 took ookthe the matter matter under advisement. 28 DISCUSSION

Decision Decision and Order Denying In-Part, In-Par1,&& Gra1_1ting GrantingIn-Part In-PartDefendant's Defendant'sMotion Motion in in Limine Limine CF0159-24, People ofofGuam v. v. Allan Allan Junior Junior Cepeda Cepeda Page 2 of9 11 I. Denison's, Matagolai's, & Denison's, Matagolai's, & Camacho's Camacho's testimony testimony may be be relevant, relevant, and and Defendant's Defendant's 2 exclude their efforts to exclude their testimony testimony under under Rule 403's balancing test test are are premature. premature.

3 Defendant first seeks to prevent the three passengers in his car car during the traffic stop

4 (Denison, Matagolai, Matagolai, & & Camacho) Camacho) from fromtestifying. testifying. Id. Q atat 2-4. Defendant Defendant claims claims any any potential

5 testimony these witnesses might give is irrelevant, claiming none of them have any personal

6 knowledge regarding regarding his his alleged alleged drug drugpossession. possession. Id. Q at at 3-4. 3-4. Therefore, Therefore, Defendant Defendant believes

7 their testimony will unfairly prejudice him him by means of of wasting time, misleading the jury, and

8 confusion of of the the issues. issues. Id. Q at at 3-4.

9 Evidence is "relevant" if if itit has "any "any tendency tendency to to make make the the existence existence of of any fact that is

10 10 of of consequence consequence to the determination determination of of the the action action more probable probable or less probable than it would

11 11 be without the evidence." See 66 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 401. 401. "All "All relevant relevant evidence evidence is is admissible" admissible" unless unless

12 12 otherwise excluded, "evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." See 66 G.C.A. excluded, and "evidence G.C.A. §§ 13 13 402. 402. Rule Rule 403 403 offers offers one one way way to to exclude exclude relevant relevant evidence, evidence, allowing allowing for for the exclusion exclusion of

14 14 relevant evidence "if "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the the danger danger of of unfair 15 15 prejudice, confusion confusion of of the issues, or misleading misleading the jury, or by by considerations of undue delay,

16 16 waste of of time, time, or or needless needless presentation presentation of of cumulative evidence." See 66 G.C.A. cumulative evidence." G.C.A. §§ 403 403 17 17 (emphasis added). Rule Rule 403 403 's balancing test favors inclusion of of relevant evidence, permitting

18 18 exclusion only in the limited limited scenarios scenarios where probative value is "substantially "substantially outweighed" outweighed'' 19 19 by the danger of of unfair prejudice. Id.

20 Here, it is not yet clear what probative value or unfair unfair prejudice prejudice (if (if any) any) this this testimony testimony

21 might elicit. Because Because the the witnesses witnesses haven't haven't had had the the chance chance to to testify testify yet, Defendant Defendant is just 22 speculating when he calls their their testimony testimony irrelevant. irrelevant. It's It's entirely entirely possible possible the the witnesses could 23 provide Defendant's alleged provide relevant testimony regarding Defendant's alleged drug drug possession, because they were 24 supposedly in the Defendant's Defendant's car car while while he he had methamphetamine methamphetamine paraphernalia paraphernalia in his pocket 25 and around the car floor. floor. See Court Recording at 1:59:00pm, 1:59:00pm, 2:04:40pm-2:07:00pm 2:04:40pm-2:07:00pm (Jun. 7, 26 2024). Defendant Defendant has has failed failed to to show show that this testimony will produce minimal probative value

27 or greatly unfair prejudice. Therefore, Therefore; itit is is improper improper and premature to exclude such testimony testimony

28 under Rule 403 403's balancing test.

Decision Decision and Order Denying Denying In-Part, In-Part, & & Granting In-Part In-Part Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion in in Liniine Limine CF0159-24,People People of of Guam v. v. Allan Allan Junior Junior Cepeda Cepeda Page 3 of 9 1

11 II. 11. The GPD Report is inadmissible hearsay hearsay if if offered offered into into evidence evidence by the People.

2 Defenda nt also Defendant a l so seeks seek s to to exclude u de the the GPD GPD Report from evidence, Report from dence, claiming a i mi ng it is

3 inadmissible hearsay. See Motion at 5-6 5-6 (May 7, 2024).

4 "Hearsay is aa statement, statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the

5 trial or hearing, offered in evidence to to prove the truth of the the matter matter asserted." See 6 G.C.A.

6 §§ 80l(c). 801(c). "Hearsay "Hearsayisisnot notadmissible admissibleexcept exceptasas provided provided by by the the laws laws of Guam." See 6 G.C.A. of Guam."

7 §§ 8802. 0 Rules 803 803 and and 804 804 lay lay out out the thelimited limited situations situations where where hearsay hearsay statements statements are 8 circumstances surrounding admissible because the circumstances surrounding such statements bolster the the statement's

9 reliability. The The relevant relevant exceptions exceptions of hate are: of note

10 10 • • The Business Record exception, exception, which allows allows for for the the introduction introduction of a 11 11 "report... ... made made atat or or near near the the time time by- by ..... a person with knowledge, if if kept 12 12 in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the

13 13 regular practice of that business business activity activity to to make the ... report". See 6

14 14 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 803(6). 803(6). 15 15 • • The Public Record excepti on, which al exception, allows for for the the iintroduction ntrodu cti on of a f6 1'6 "report... setting setting forth... forth ... matters matters observed observed pursuant pursuant to a duty imposed by 17 17 law as to which which matters there was aa duty duty to to report, excluding, x g however, r , iin

18 18 criminal m i n a l cases c a s e s matters t t e r s observed o b s e r v e d by b y police i c e oofficers f c e r s and oother t llaw a 19 enforcement e r s o n n e l " See 66 G.C.A. m e n t ppersonneI''. G.C.A. §§ 803(8) 803(8) (emphasis (emphasis added). added). 20 Here, the GPD GPD Report Report is is aa hearsay hearsay statement. statement. The The Public Public Record Record exception exception does not 21 apply because police reports are specifically excluded excluded from from that exception. Id. The Business 22 Record exception also does not cover cover this statement, statement, because police reports are ordinarily ordinarily 23 based on descriptions from witnesses to the incident rather than informants informants with a business 24 duty to report. or See MacLean n v. City & & Cnty. C i t y. of of San Sa n Francisco, Fra n ci sco, 151 Cal.App.2d Cal.App.2d 133, 142-143 25 (1957). Therefore, Therefore, the the People People may maynot not introduce introduce the GPD Report into theGPD into evidence. evidence. The People 26 acknowledged this this result, result, and and do do not plan on seeking seeking the the GPD GPD Report's Report's admission. admission. See 27 Opposition at at 55 (May (May 21, 2024). 28

Decision and Order Order Denying Denying In-Part, In-Part,&& Granting Granting In-Part In-PartDefendant's Defendant'sMotion Motion in in Limine Limine CF0159-24,People CF0I59-24, of ofGuam v. v. Allan Junior Cepeda Cepeda Page 4 of9 11 However, the the People can can still make other permissible make other permissibleuse useof ofthe theGPD GPDReport. Report. For

2 example, the GPD example, the GPD Report may may be used "to refresh refresh memory for the the purpose purpose of testifying,

3 either. while testifying, either... testifying." See 6 testifying, or ... before testifying." 6 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 612. 612. IfIfaatestifying testifying 4 witness's memory is witness's is not refreshed, even after viewing viewing the the GPD GPD Report, Report, the the witness witness may may then

5 the GPD "read into evidence" the GPD Report Report ififititwas was"made "madeororadopted adopted by by the the witness witness when when the

6 matter was was fresh fresh in in the thewitness' memory". See 6 witness' memory". 6 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§803 (5). ItItisispremature 803(5). premature to to deny deny

7 the the People such uses of the such uses the GPD GPD Report, Report, even even though though the the Report Report itself itself is is otherwise otherwise 8 · inadmissible hearsay. hearsay.

9 III. 111. Denison's statements statements are are hearsay hearsayifif offered offered to to prove prove the the truth truth of the matter contained contained

10 10 within, but but may may still stillbe beadmissible admissible under under the the "Statement "Statement Against Against Interest" Interest" exception. exception.

11 11 The The statements may also also be be admissible admissiblefor for purposes purposesbeyond beyondproving provingtheir theirtruth. truth.

12 12 Defendant also seeks to 'exclude Denison's statements exclude Denison's statements in the GPD Report Report as as hearsay. hearsay. 13 13 Motion at See Motion 4-5 (May at 4-5 (May 7, 7, 2024). 2024). As Asmentioned mentionedabove, above,Denison Denisonwas was one oneof ofthe thepassengers passengers 14 14 inside Defendant's Defendant's vehicle vehicleand and she she too too was was arrested arrested after after police policefound foundaamethamphetamine methamphetamine 15 pipe in her possession. possession. Following Following her arrest, arrest,Denison Denisonallegedly allegedlytold toldGPD GPDofficers officers "I "I know it

16 16 would test positive, I smoked Meth a week ago." Defendant smoked meth Defendantnow nowseeks seekstotosuppress suppress those those 17 17 statements, arguing they are inadmissible hearsay. statements, arguing hearsay. Id. at 4-5.

18 18 "Hearsay is is aa statement, statement, other than than one one made madeby by the the declarant declarantwhile while testifying testifying at the

19 19 trial or hearing, offered offered in in evidence evidence to to prove provethe thetruth truth of ofthe the matter matter asserted." asserted." See 6 G.C.A. 20 § § 80l(c). 801(c)."Hearsay "Hearsayisisnot notadmissible admissibleexcept exceptas as provided provided by by the laws of the laws of Guam." Guam." See 6 G.C.A.

21 §§ 802. 802. 22 The onlyapplicable applicablehearsay hearsay exception exception here is Rule 804's "Statement Against Against Interest" Interest"

23 exception. See 6 6 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§804(b)(3). 804(b)(3).However, However,that thatexception exceptionrequires requiresthat thatthe the declarant be declarant be 24 unavailable as a witness, and nothing nothing suggests that that Denison Denison is unavailable. unavailable. Id. If Ifthe the People 25 offer offer Denison's Denison's statements their truth statements to prove their truth(that (thatDenison Denisonhad hadsmoked smokedmeth met a week week ago), ago),

26 they would have to to pursue pursueRule Rule804(b)(3) 804(b)(3) when when doing doing so. so. Any Any ruling ruling on on whether the People whether the People

27 have properly invoked the "Statement Against Interest" Interest" exception exception is is best best made made on on aa future 28 date, the People date, should the People decide decide to to pursue pursue that route. route.

Decision Decision and Order Denying Denying In-Part, In-Part, & & Granting Granting In-Part In-Part Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion in in Limine Limine CF0159-24,People CF0l59-24, People ofof Guam v. v. Allan Allan Junior Junior Cepeda Cepeda " Page 5 of9 \.

11 The statements may also statements may also be admissible admissible for for purposes purposes beyond proving proving their their truth. truth. 2 Hearsay only excludes Hearsay only excludes statements "offered in evidence statements "offered evidence to to prove prove the* the truth truth of the the matter matter 3 asserted." 6 G.C.A. asserted." See 6 801(c).The G.C.A. §§ 80l(c). People The may People maystill stilloffer Denison's offer Denison'statements statements into into 4 for reasons evidence for beyond proving reasons beyond proving that thatDenison Denisonhad hadrecently recentlysmoked smokedmeth met (i.e., (i.e., to to prove

5 that Denison was that was awake awake and andalert), alert), provided provided that that the the evidence evidence is not otherwise excluded by

6 Rule 403's Rule 's balancing balancing test. test. 7 Iv. IV. Defendant's RAP sheet sheet is inadmissible hearsay, and inadmissible hearsay, and may may not not be used used to prove the the 8 existence existence of of Defendant's Defendant's previous previous arrests, arrests, convictions, convictions, or orsentences imposed upon. sentences imposed 9 Defendant also seeks Defendant also seeks to to exclude exclude his his RAP RAP sheet sheet as as hearsay, offered as hearsay, offered the People's as the 10 10 Exhibit One. One. See Motion Motion at at 6-7 (May 7, 2024); 2024), People's People's Submission of Exhibit List Submission of List (Apr. 19, 19, I 11 11 2024). 2024). 12. 12. "Hearsay is is aa statement, statement, other than than one one made madeby by the the declarant declarantwhile while testifying testifying at the

13 13 trial or hearing, offered in hearing, offered in evidence evidence to to prove provethe the truth truth of ofthe the matter matter asserted." asserted." See 6 G.C.A. 14 14 §§ 801(c). 801(c). "Hearsay "Hearsayisisnot notadmissible admissible except except as provided by as provided the laws by the laws of of Guam." Guam." See 6 G.C.A.

15 15 § § 802. 802. Here, Here, the the relevant relevant hearsay hearsay exceptions exceptions are: are: 16 16 • • The Public Public Record Record exception, which allows exception, which allows for the the introduction of aa introduction of 17 17 "report... "report ... setting settingforth... forth ...matters mattersobserved observedpursuant pursuant to aa duty duty imposed by 18 18 law as to which which matters there there was was aa duty dutyto to report, report, excluding, excluding, however, however, in

19 19 criminal cases matters criminal cases mattersobserved observedby by police police officers officers and and other other law law 20 enforcement personnel". See 6 G.C.A. §§ 803(8). 6 G.C.A. 803(8). . 21 • • The Judgment of Previous Judgment of Previous Conviction Conviction exception, exception, which which allows allows for the the 22 introduction of "a final introduction of final judgment, judgment, entered after aa trial entered after trial or upon upon aa plea plea of 23 guilty... guilty ... alleging alleging aa person person guilty guilty of ofaacrime crimepunishable punishable bY by death death or 24 imprisonment inexcess imprisonment in excessofone year," See 6 ozone year.'' 6 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 803(22). 803(22). 25 Here, tlie.R.AP the RAP sheet sheet contains contains several several hearsay hearsay statements. statements. These These statements statements list out out 26 days in which Defendant was arrested, was criminally convicted, arrested, times Defendant was convicted, sentences sentences 27 imposed imposed on Defendant, Defendant, and various other other accusations accusations of of Defendant's Defendant's wrongdoing. wrongdoing. See 28 Motion, Exhibit A (May (May 7, 7, 2024). 2024).

Decision Decision and Order Denying Denying In-Part, In-Part, & & Granting In-Part In-Part Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion in in Limine Limine CF0159-24, CF0l59-24, People ofofGuam v. v. Allan Allan Junior Junior Cepeda Cepeda Page 6 of 9 L 1

11 ThelPublic Record Record exception exception does not cover RAP RAP sheets. US. v. sheets. See US. Perlmuter, 693 v. Perlmuter,

F.2d 1290, th Cir. 1979). This 2 1290, 1293-1294 (10 (10th Cir. 1979). This is because multiple hearsay statements statements are are often often

3 contained within RAP RAP sheets, sheets, each each requiring individual exceptions exceptions to to the the hearsay hearsay rule. Id. at ' 4 1293. 1293. Furthermore, Furthermore, when RAP RAP sheets sheets cover "coverlong longperiods periods (such (such as as this sheet which covers

5 5 eight eight years), years), itit becomes becbmes apparent apparent that the the person personpreparing preparingthe theRAP RAP sheet did did not observe or

6 possess first-hand first-handknowledge knowledge of of each each arrest, conviction, conviction, and and sentence laid out. ~d. at 1294.

7 Therefore, the Therefore, the RAP RAPsheets sheets are are not not admissible admissible under the the Public Public Record Record exception exception to the

8 hearsay rule. rule. , .

9 The People People should should instead pursue pursuethe theJudgment JudgmentofofPrevious PreviousConviction Convictionexception exception if if

10 10 they wish wish to prove prove underlying ~mderlyingfacts Contained within facts·contained See_ 6 within a judgment. See G.C.A. §§ 803(22).. 6 G.C.A. 803(22)

11 11 By Byattempting attempting to introduce introduce Defendant's previous convictions convictions through RAP sheet, through a RAP sheet, the

12 12 People People are are trying to avoid Rule 803(22)'s .03 (22)'s requirement that that convictions a court- convictions be shown by a th Cir. 1979). 13 13 US. v. issued final judgment. See US. v. Perlmuter, 693 693 F.2d F.2d 1290, 1290, 1294 (10thCir. 1979). If the

14 14 People People do do properly properly invoke invoke RUle Rule 803 (22), evidence 803(22), evidence of Defendant's Defendant's previous convictions convictions may

15 15 not be used as as propensity propensity evidence, evidence, but may be used for for other purposes, purposes, such suchas asproof proof of of

16 16 motive, motive, knowledge, knowledge, or or absence of mistake. See 6 absence of 6 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 404(b). 404(b).

17 17 v. V. drug tests Field drug conducted on Defendant's tests conducted Defendant's alleged alleged methamphetamine pipe are methamphetamine pipe 18 18 admissible, even even without without expert tesdmony'. testimony.

19 19 Defendant also seeks to to exclude field drug drug tests that GPD tests that GPD officers officers conducted conducted on on his his

20 alleged alleged methamphetamine methamphetamine pipe. See Motion Motion at at 7-8 7-8 (May (May7, 7, 2024). 2024). Defendant Defendantargues argues such such

21 evidence evidence is is not not admissible admissible absent expert witness testimony concerning the reliability reliability and arid basis

22 of ofthe the tests. tests. Id; at 7-8. 7-8. The The People Peopledo do not not plan plan on on calling calling aa dedicated dedicated chemical analysis expert,

23 and instead instead seek seek to to introduce introduce the the test testresults. results through through the the administering administering Officer. officer. See

24 Opposition at at 5-8 5-8(May (May 21, 21,2024); 2024),People's People's Witness WitnessList List(May (May 1, l, 2024).

25 Ifaa "witness If "witness is is not testifying as an anexpert", expert", they theymay maynot notgive give"opinions "opinions or orinferences inferences... ...

26 based on scientific, scientific, technical, technical, or orother otherspecialized knowledge". See 6 specializedknowledge". G.C.A. §701. 6 G.C.A. 701. However, However,

27 witnesses qualified as an expert expert~ay may give give such opinions opinions or or inferences inferences"if "if scientific, technical,

28 or or other other specialized knowledge will will assist assist the the trier trier of offact fact to tounderstand understand the evidence or to

Decision Decision and Order OrderDenying.In-Part, Denying ln-Part,& & Granting GrantingIn-Part In-PartDefendant's-Motion Defendant'sMotion in Limine CF0159=24,People CF0l59~24, People of ofGuam Guam v. v. Allan Allan Junior JuniorCepeda Cepeda Page 7 of9 1 1 determine a fact in issue". See 66 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 702. 702. Such Such expert expert testimony testimony must must be be "based "based upon upon 2 sufficient facts facts or data" data" and be "the product product of reliable reliable principles principles and and methods methods... applied... ... applied ...

3 reliably to the facts of the case." Id. "When "When detemiining determining whether whether an expert's expert's methodology is 4 reliable, reliable, a court court should consider consider factors such as 'testing, factors such 'testing, peer peer review, review, error error rates, rates, and and

5 'acceptability' in in the the relevant relevant scientific community." See People v. Mateo 2017 2017 Guam Guam22 ,r 2211

6 30 (citing Daubert Daubers v. v. Merrell Merrell Dow Dow Pharm. Pharm. Inc., 509 U.S. at 593-94 (1993)).

7 Although there is split authority, several courts have held that presumptive field tests

8 are admissible despite despite the absence of "expert testimony regarding the underlying chemical chemical

9 reaction or science upon which the test is based". See People v. Mateo 2017 Guam Guam 22 ,r 31l 22113 10 (citing Fortune Fortune v. v. State, State, 696 S.E.2d S.E.2d 120, 120, 123-24 123-24 (Ga. Ct. App. App. 2010), 2010); Commonwealth Commonwealth v. 11 Fernandez, 934 N.E.2d 810, Fernandez, 810, 820-21 820-21 (Mass. (Mass. 2010)). 20l0)). These These courts courts reasoned reasoned that "such "such tests are 12 not novel" and do not require the assistance of expert expert witness witness testimony. testimony. See People v. Mateo

13 13 2017 Guam'22 ,r 31. Guam·22'H 31.

14 Aware of of this split split of of authority, authority, the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court never never expressly expressly required required 15 expert testimony for the admission of field test results. Id. at ,r 1131. 31. Therefore, it is reasonable 16 results are to assume field test results are admissible admissible even without expert testimony. testimony.

17 . CONCLUSION

18 For the reasons reasons stated stated above, above, the Court Court DENIES DENIES IN-PART IN-PART AND GRANTS GRANTS IN-PART IN-PART 19 Defendant's Defendant'sMotion. Motion. The TheCoult's Court'sfindings findings are are as as follows: follows: 20 •• Efforts Efforts to suppress Denison's, Matagolai's, & Camacho's suppress Denison's, Camacho's testimony testimony are are premature premature 21 because such testimony may be relevant and carry significant significant probative value. 22 •• The GPD Report is hearsay, but the People may still utilize it to refresh refresh a witness's 23 memory or under the Past Recollection Recorded hearsay exception. 24 • · Denison's • Denison's statements statements are are hearsay hearsay ififoffered offered to to prove prove the the truth truth of of the matter contained 25 within, but may still be admissible admissible under the "Statement Against Interest" exception. 26 The statements may also be admissible admissible for purposes beyond proving their truth. 27 • • Defendant's RAP sheet _sheet is inadmissible hearsay, and may not be used to prove the inadmissible hearsay, 28 existence of Defendant's Defendant's previous previous arrests, arrests, convictions, or or sentences imposed upon.

Decision Decision and and Order Denying In-Part, In-Part, & & Granting Granting In-Part In-PartDefendant's Defendant's Motion Motion in Limine CF0159»24, People of CF0I59-24, People ofGuam Guam v. v. Allan Allan Junior Cepeda Cepeda Page 8 of9 of 9 1 • Field drug tests conducted on Defendant's alleged metbamphetamine pipe are 2 admissible, even without expert testimony. 3

7 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 8

12 13

14 15

17 18

20 21 22 23 24 SHVICE VIA"E•MAIL I Jcknowl1dae that an electronic 25 :!::'•'!li!!l!""'' ....'""'IO: -t!llJ r Y dt,u-1;;- 26 27 28

Decision and Order Denying In-Part, & Granting In-Part Defendant's Motion in Limine CF0159-24, People of Guam v. Allan Junior Cepeda Page 9 of9