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

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 byby

..... 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 courtconvictions 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 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

4

5

6

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

9

10

11

12 13

14 15

16

17 18

19

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