People v. Cruz

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: February 8, 2012
• Docket: CF0633-10
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL cl.O~~~.-~FJA'Jtltf7 3 ) CLERK OF COURT vs. ) 4 ) DECISION~ ORDER ) ON DEFENDANT'S'MOTION TO 5 ) DISMISS JEFFREY W. CRUZ, 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 )

8 ----------------------------) 9 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on November 22,2011 lO on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Peter P. Perez appeared on behalf of th 11 Defendant, who was present. Attorney Nelson J. Werner appeared on behalf of the Government 12 Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented and the record, the Court now issues th 13 following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Defendant is charged with Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct as a First Degre 16 Felony. Defendant requests dismissal as he argues that the grand jury was not instructed on th 17 general law or an essential element of the offense. Defendant has also filed a Motion to Suppres 18 and Motion to Disclose Prior Bad Acts with this Court. This Decision and Order will only de 19 with the Motion to Dismiss based on the two grounds mentioned above as a hearing has not bee 20 scheduled for the other motions. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Failure to Instruct Grand Jury on the General Law 23 Title 8 of the Guam Code Annotated § SO.S4(b) provides: ''the grand jury shall find 24 indictment when from the evidence presented, there is reasonable cause to believe that 25 indictable offense was committed and that the defendant committed it". (2010). The grand j 26 may only carry out its duties with a proper understanding of the applicable and general law. 27 this case, Defendant asserts that the grand jury was not instructed on the law at the time of th 28 presentation. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at 3. It is clear from the Grand Jury Transcript tha

People v. Jeffrey W. Cruz, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0633-10 - Page 1 of3 - 1 both the applicable law and general law were read to the jury. The only issue before the Co 2 relating to this motion is whether or not the Governments practice of reading the general la 3 earlier in the day and not rereading the general law just before the presentation of the cas 4 invalidates the indictment? 5 On the day in which Defendant was indicted, the attorney present for the Office of th 6 Attorney General asked the grand jury if they would like the general law to be read once again 7 At least two grand jurors did not want the general law read again and no other juror expresse 8 any interest or need to have the general law read to them again. Grand Jury Transcript at 2 9 Prosecution also presented an affidavit to this Court from the Court's Jury Commissioner that th 10 jury panel did not change since the morning at the time the general law was originally read. N 11 new members were added to the grand jury at the time Defendant's case was presented by th 12 Government. Thus, the grand jury panel understood the general law and responded in th 13 negative when asked if they wanted the general law read once again. The Court finds that th 14 Government's practice complies with Guam laws as long as it can be shown that all members 0 15 the grand jury were read the general law. Finally, the Court believes that there would be to 16 much of a financial and time burden to require the Government to instruct the grand jury with th 17 general law before each case unless a new grand juror is present. 18 Failure to Instruct the Grand Jury on an Essential Element of the Offense 19 Defendant argues that the court should grant the Motion to Dismiss because 20 Government failed to instruct the grand jury as to the requirement that the touching must be don 21 for sexual gratification. 8 GCA §55.1 O(a) provides: "the indictment ... shall be a plain, concis 22 and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and shall b 23 signed by the prosecuting attorney." (2010). The Government opposes on the basis of People v. 24 Jones, 2006 Guam 13, ~ 12 and additionally contends that the indictment is clear when read i 25 conjunction with the grand jury transcript. 26 The Court has held that an indictment is valid if it informs a defendant of the crim 27 charged with sufficient clarity to allow him to defend adequately against such charges. "It is 28 cardinal principle of our criminal law that an indictment is sufficient which apprises a defendan

People v. Jeffrey W. Cruz, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0633-10 - Page 2 of 3 - . . •

of the crime with which he is charged so as to enable him to prepare his defense and to plea 2 judgment of acquittal or conviction as a plea to subsequent prosecution for the same offense.' 3 People v. Jones, 2006 Guam 13. "Guam law is in accordance with this view, holding 4 indictment to be sufficient where it contains the elements of the crime alleged, adequatel 5 informs the defendant of the crime to allow him to defend against the charges, and is stated wi 6 sufficient clarity to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Id., citing People v. Salas 7 2000 Guam 2. Furthermore, dismissal is a last resort for courts where there is prejudice to th 8 defendant. People v. Muna, 999 F .2d 397, 399 (9 th Cir. 1993) 9 Here, the offense as charged was directly read to the grand jury and the grand jury hear 10 testimony from the investigating police officer. See Grand Jury Transcript. The Court fin 11 sufficient detail to explain and show sexual contact which is required to prove sexual conduc 12 under 9 GCA § 25.20(a)(1). Additionally, Section 25.20 was read verbatim to the grand jury 13 Grand Jury Transcript at 5. The charge in the indictment tracks the language of 9 GCA §52.2 14 and the indictment may be sufficient on this basis alone. See People v. Jones, 2006 Guam 13, 15 23. Furthermore, the indictment states that the Defendant touched the breast of a minor, whic 16 the grand jury could likely have found to imply the purpose for the contact. Here, the indictmen 17 was formed such that the Defendant was adequately informed and subsequent prosecution woul 18 be barred. Finally, Defendant suffered no prejudice. For these reasons, the indictment i 19 sufficient and the Motion to Dismiss is denied. 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Partie 22 are ordered to return March 27,2011 at 10:00a.m. for trial setting. 23 So ORDERED.,J.1:lll; da~ of February, 2012. t tH -o-g- 2012 24

26 VERNON P. PEREZ 27 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 28

People v. Jeffrey W. Cruz, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0633-1 0 - Page 3 of 3 -