FH-ED SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAH 1 2018 APR -6 PM 4: l I 2 CLERKOFw-· 3 4 y·----- B'f' IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0047-18 6 ) v. ) 7 ) DECISION AND ORDER RE: 8 JEROME JOE CRUZ, ) DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS ) 9 DEFENDANT. ) 10 _______________________________) 11 INTRODUCTION
12 This matter is assigned to the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon. On the eve of trial, Defendant 13 Jerome Joe Cruz ("Defendant") moved 1) to Dismiss the Indictment~ 2) to Continue Trial, 3) for 14 Bail Redetermination, and 4) to Exclude GRE 413 Evidence. During all of the hearings, 15 Defendant was present and represented by Assistant Alternate Public Defender John Morrison. 16 The People of Guam ("the People") were repr~~.ented by Assistant Attorney General Terry 17 VanEaton. OnMarch 16, 2018, during a continued pre-trial conference, the Court ruled from the 18 bench DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment, to continue trial, request for bail 19 redetermination, and to exclude GRE 413 evidence (plea agreement and judgment of CF0304- 20 09). On March 19, 2018, the Court DENIED the People's request to admit the 2009 Declaration 21 of Probable Cause for CF0304-09 (the "2009 Declaration"). This Decision and Order further 22 memorializes the Court's rulings. 1 23 II 24 II 25 26 1 The Court also issues this written J)ecision and Order in compliance with 8 GCA § 40.50(a). (Requiring unless the 27 conditions of release are amended and the person is thereupon released, the judge shall set forth in writing the reasons for requiring the conditions imposed) (emphasis added). 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 1 of 10 1 BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by indictment with TWO COUNTS of Second Degree Criminal 2 3 Sexual Conduct (as a First Degree Felony) in violation of 9 G.C:A. §§ 25.20(a)(l) and (b).
4 Indictment (Jan. 22, 2018). On February 8, 2018, Defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial.
5 On February 13, 2018, the Defendant appeared before this Court for the first time where the
6 Court set the matter for trial on February 20, 2018. On that same date, Defendant filed a motion 7. to extend the Motion Cut Off-Date and to vacate the jury trial. On February 14, 2018, the
8 Government filed a Notice of Intent to Admit 413 Evidence. On February 19, 2018, the Court
9 did not rule on Defendant's Motion, but instead vacated the trial date to allow sufficient time for
10 the Government to comply with the 413 Notice Requirement. 2 11 On March 9, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. On March 14, 12 2018, the parties appeared before this Court for a pre-trial conference where the Court ruled from 13 the bench DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. 14 On March 15, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude GRE 413 evidence 15 and for Bail Redetermination under 8 G.C.A. § 40.50. The Court held a pre-trial conference on 16 March 16, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. where the Defendant also orally moved for continuance. After 17 returning in the afternoon the same day, the Court orally DENIED Defendant's Motion 1) for a 18 ContiJ;mance, 2) for a Bail Redetermination, and 3) to Exclude the Plea Agreement and Judgment 19 of CF0304-09. The Court, however, reserved its ruling on the People's Request to Admit the 20 2009 Declaration. 21 On March 19,2018, the Court DENIED People's Request to Admit the 2009 Declaration. 22 Jury trial was held on March 19 to March 21, 2018. On March 22, 2018, the jury returned a 23 verdict of NOT GUILTY on all charges. 24 II 25 II 26 27 2 GRE 413 requires that the Government provides a notice to admit 413 evidence 15 days prior to the date of trial. 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 2 of 10 DISCUSSION 1 A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment 2 Defendant relies on 8 GCA § 50.423 and requests this Court to dismiss the indictment 3 4 because it "rest solely on the presentation of legally incompetent evidence." Mot. to Dismiss
5 Indictment, at p. 1 (Mar. 9, 2018). First, Defendant argues "the indictment was based almost
6 entirely on hearsay and every statement needed to establish any of the elements of the crime are
7 inadmissible hearsay." !d. at p. 6. Secondly, the prosecutor admitted details of Defendant's prior
8 sex offense and allowed a police officer to vouch for a witness without a limiting instruction. !d.
9 atp. 9.
10 Defendant also contends "cases contrary to his position that are referenced in the
11 compiler of law's notes ... are not binding to this Court," since it was reached before the statute 12 was passed or from a court that no longer exists. !d. at p. 1. Instead, Defendant relies on 13 California case law interpreting competent evidence as "evidence that is otherwise admissible 14 under the laws of the evidence." !d. Specifically, Defendant contests the note in Section 50.42 15 providing "A Grand Jury indictment will not be overturned because it was based on hearsay 16 testimony. It was the intent of the amendment to this section(§ 50.42) that less than 'admissible' 17 evidence is required before the grand jury. Compiler's Note cited in case." (emphasis added). The 18 Court disagrees with Defendant's contention and finds People v. Quidachay is controlling, as 19 specifically addressed in In Re Camacho. 4 20 With the exception of 8 G.C.A. § 50.14(b), no provision exist in the Guam Code for a court 21 to review a grand jury's finding "there is reasonable cause to believe that an indictable offense 22 23 3 The statute reads as, "The grand jury shall receive only competent evidence but the fact that evidence which is 24 incompetent was received by the grand jury does not render the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support the indictment was receivedby the grand jury." 25 4 Holding "[p]recedent [from the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam] that was extant when [the Guam: 26 Supreme Court] became operational continues unless and until [the Guam Supreme Court] address the issues discussed there. [The Guam Supreme Court] will not divert from such precedents unless reason supports such 27 deviation." 2006 Guam 5 (quoting People v. Quenga, 1997 Guam 6) (emphasis added). 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 3 of 10 has been committed and that the defendant committed it." 8 G.C.A. § 50.54(b). Even§ 50.14(b) 1 is strictly curtailed to challenges "based on objections to the array or on the lack of legal 2 3 qualification of an individual juror, if not previously determined upon challenge." The provision
4 which Defendant seeks to challenge the competency of the evidence received by the grand jury
5 operates with the caveat that "the fact that evidence which is incompetent was received by the
6 grand jury does not render the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support
7 the indictment was received by the grand jury.'' 8 G.C.A. § 50.42. The Supreme Court of the
8 United States has found that allowance for trial courts to review findings of a grand jury "would
9 run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their
10 inquiries unfettered by technical rules." Costello v. U.S., 350 U.S. 359, 364 (1956). In that vein,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FH-ED SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAH 1 2018 APR -6 PM 4: l I 2 CLERKOFw-· 3 4 y·----- B'f' IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0047-18 6 ) v. ) 7 ) DECISION AND ORDER RE: 8 JEROME JOE CRUZ, ) DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS ) 9 DEFENDANT. ) 10 _______________________________) 11 INTRODUCTION
12 This matter is assigned to the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon. On the eve of trial, Defendant 13 Jerome Joe Cruz ("Defendant") moved 1) to Dismiss the Indictment~ 2) to Continue Trial, 3) for 14 Bail Redetermination, and 4) to Exclude GRE 413 Evidence. During all of the hearings, 15 Defendant was present and represented by Assistant Alternate Public Defender John Morrison. 16 The People of Guam ("the People") were repr~~.ented by Assistant Attorney General Terry 17 VanEaton. OnMarch 16, 2018, during a continued pre-trial conference, the Court ruled from the 18 bench DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment, to continue trial, request for bail 19 redetermination, and to exclude GRE 413 evidence (plea agreement and judgment of CF0304- 20 09). On March 19, 2018, the Court DENIED the People's request to admit the 2009 Declaration 21 of Probable Cause for CF0304-09 (the "2009 Declaration"). This Decision and Order further 22 memorializes the Court's rulings. 1 23 II 24 II 25 26 1 The Court also issues this written J)ecision and Order in compliance with 8 GCA § 40.50(a). (Requiring unless the 27 conditions of release are amended and the person is thereupon released, the judge shall set forth in writing the reasons for requiring the conditions imposed) (emphasis added). 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 1 of 10 1 BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by indictment with TWO COUNTS of Second Degree Criminal 2 3 Sexual Conduct (as a First Degree Felony) in violation of 9 G.C:A. §§ 25.20(a)(l) and (b).
4 Indictment (Jan. 22, 2018). On February 8, 2018, Defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial.
5 On February 13, 2018, the Defendant appeared before this Court for the first time where the
6 Court set the matter for trial on February 20, 2018. On that same date, Defendant filed a motion 7. to extend the Motion Cut Off-Date and to vacate the jury trial. On February 14, 2018, the
8 Government filed a Notice of Intent to Admit 413 Evidence. On February 19, 2018, the Court
9 did not rule on Defendant's Motion, but instead vacated the trial date to allow sufficient time for
10 the Government to comply with the 413 Notice Requirement. 2 11 On March 9, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. On March 14, 12 2018, the parties appeared before this Court for a pre-trial conference where the Court ruled from 13 the bench DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. 14 On March 15, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude GRE 413 evidence 15 and for Bail Redetermination under 8 G.C.A. § 40.50. The Court held a pre-trial conference on 16 March 16, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. where the Defendant also orally moved for continuance. After 17 returning in the afternoon the same day, the Court orally DENIED Defendant's Motion 1) for a 18 ContiJ;mance, 2) for a Bail Redetermination, and 3) to Exclude the Plea Agreement and Judgment 19 of CF0304-09. The Court, however, reserved its ruling on the People's Request to Admit the 20 2009 Declaration. 21 On March 19,2018, the Court DENIED People's Request to Admit the 2009 Declaration. 22 Jury trial was held on March 19 to March 21, 2018. On March 22, 2018, the jury returned a 23 verdict of NOT GUILTY on all charges. 24 II 25 II 26 27 2 GRE 413 requires that the Government provides a notice to admit 413 evidence 15 days prior to the date of trial. 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 2 of 10 DISCUSSION 1 A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment 2 Defendant relies on 8 GCA § 50.423 and requests this Court to dismiss the indictment 3 4 because it "rest solely on the presentation of legally incompetent evidence." Mot. to Dismiss
5 Indictment, at p. 1 (Mar. 9, 2018). First, Defendant argues "the indictment was based almost
6 entirely on hearsay and every statement needed to establish any of the elements of the crime are
7 inadmissible hearsay." !d. at p. 6. Secondly, the prosecutor admitted details of Defendant's prior
8 sex offense and allowed a police officer to vouch for a witness without a limiting instruction. !d.
9 atp. 9.
10 Defendant also contends "cases contrary to his position that are referenced in the
11 compiler of law's notes ... are not binding to this Court," since it was reached before the statute 12 was passed or from a court that no longer exists. !d. at p. 1. Instead, Defendant relies on 13 California case law interpreting competent evidence as "evidence that is otherwise admissible 14 under the laws of the evidence." !d. Specifically, Defendant contests the note in Section 50.42 15 providing "A Grand Jury indictment will not be overturned because it was based on hearsay 16 testimony. It was the intent of the amendment to this section(§ 50.42) that less than 'admissible' 17 evidence is required before the grand jury. Compiler's Note cited in case." (emphasis added). The 18 Court disagrees with Defendant's contention and finds People v. Quidachay is controlling, as 19 specifically addressed in In Re Camacho. 4 20 With the exception of 8 G.C.A. § 50.14(b), no provision exist in the Guam Code for a court 21 to review a grand jury's finding "there is reasonable cause to believe that an indictable offense 22 23 3 The statute reads as, "The grand jury shall receive only competent evidence but the fact that evidence which is 24 incompetent was received by the grand jury does not render the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support the indictment was receivedby the grand jury." 25 4 Holding "[p]recedent [from the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam] that was extant when [the Guam: 26 Supreme Court] became operational continues unless and until [the Guam Supreme Court] address the issues discussed there. [The Guam Supreme Court] will not divert from such precedents unless reason supports such 27 deviation." 2006 Guam 5 (quoting People v. Quenga, 1997 Guam 6) (emphasis added). 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 3 of 10 has been committed and that the defendant committed it." 8 G.C.A. § 50.54(b). Even§ 50.14(b) 1 is strictly curtailed to challenges "based on objections to the array or on the lack of legal 2 3 qualification of an individual juror, if not previously determined upon challenge." The provision
4 which Defendant seeks to challenge the competency of the evidence received by the grand jury
5 operates with the caveat that "the fact that evidence which is incompetent was received by the
6 grand jury does not render the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support
7 the indictment was received by the grand jury.'' 8 G.C.A. § 50.42. The Supreme Court of the
8 United States has found that allowance for trial courts to review findings of a grand jury "would
9 run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their
10 inquiries unfettered by technical rules." Costello v. U.S., 350 U.S. 359, 364 (1956). In that vein,
11 the Costello court at 362"363 cited to a case from 1852 for authority: "No case has been cited nor 12 have we been able to find any, furnishing an authority for looking into and revising the judgment 13 of the grand jury upon the evidence, for the purpose of determining whether or not the finding 14 was founded upon sufficient proof..." (quoting U.S. v. Reed, 27 Fed.Cas. pages 727, 738, No. 15 16,134). 16 Additionally, Defendant cites to Guam Supreme Court cases where the hearsay evidence 17 were presented during a trial, not a grand jury proceeding. Moreover, since People v. Quidachay 18 remains controlling, the Court will not overturn the Grand Jury indictment merely because it was 19 based on hearsay testimony. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES DEFENDANT'S MOTION 20 TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT. 21 B. Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial 22 Defendant's counsel orally moved for continuance based on "the state of discovery at this 23 point." 5 Defense counsel argues "in a case like this, [he] would ordinarily tend to do some 24 additional investigation and discovery on [his] own, that [he] just has not had a chance to do, by 25 way of timing of it." !d. Defense counsel asserts that he does not have criminal backgrounds of 26 27 5 Continued Pre-trial Conference, at 9:33:34 (Mar. 16, 2018). 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 4 of 10 the witnesses and he is unsure if there are any that exists. ld. The People later represented none 1 of the four identified witnesses had any prior criminal record. 2 3 The court orally denied Defendant's Motion relying on the factors identified in People v.
4 Ulloa, which are: 1) the moving party's diligence in preparing for trial, 2) the likely utility of a
5 continuance, 3) the inconvenience to the court and opposing party, and 4) prejudice resulting
6 from a denial. No. DC CRIM. 87-00020A, 1988 WL 242607, at *1; See also People v. Bias,
7 2016 Guam 19, <][ 26, 53 (adopting the Ulloa factors). In applying these factors, the Court finds
8 there is no indication Defense Counsel has been dilatory. The other factors, however, remain
9 undetermined since Defendant is unsure whether a continuance would lead to more discovery or
10 not. The utility of a continuance is also uncertain because Defendant is unsure how much 11 additional time would be appropriate. Consequently, this would lead to a substantial 12 inconvenience and possibly adverse impact to the Minor victim/witness as contemplated under 8- 13 GCA § 80.65. 6 14 After analyzing the Ulloa factors, the Court also distinguished the instant case to People 15 v. Bias, 2016 Guam 19. In Blas, the Guam Supreme Court reversed the trial court's Order 16 denying Defendant a continuance of trial which in effect prevented Defendant an opportunity to 17 allow an off-island and material witness to testify. 2016 Guam 19 (emphasis added). Unlike in 18 19 6 The statute reads as: Expedited Trials of Sex Crimes Involving Minor Children as Victims or Witnesses; Continuance; Impact Statement. 20 In any criminal proceeding involving an alleged sex crime perpetrated upon a minor child, or in 21 which a minor child is expected to testify as a witness to a sex crime, the court shall, in order to minimize stress on such child, take action to expedite trial and give precedence to the case over 22 any other case; provided, however, that nothing in this Section shall be construed to mean that trial shall be expedited if it is not in the best interests of the child. When a motion or a request for a 23 continuance is made the prosecutor shall file an impact statt
4 unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A
5 CONTINUANCE.
6 C. Defendant's Motion for Bail Redetermination
7 Defendant relies on 8 GCA § 40.507 for his Motion for Bail Redetermination Hearing.
8 Defendant requests this Court to release him on a property bond. Defendant's bail was set
9 $10,000 and the property is purportedly valued at $127,100.
10 The Court relies on the factors described in 8 GCA § 40.15(c) and specifically "factors
11 which bear on the risk of willful failure to appear or the danger the person would pose to the 12 community or to any individual member thereof if released." 13 The Court recognizes that Defendant brings this motion on the eve of trial or one 14 business day before trial is expected to begin. The Court is mostly concerned Defendant's release
15 would bear a substantial risk of danger to the victim and/or witnesses in this trial. The 16 allegations in this case arise out· of an incident that occurred after a family gathering where 17 Defendant allegedly engaged in sexual contact with a minor relative. Since the victims and other 18 potential witnesses in this case are related to the Defendant, the Court does not find that release 19 of the Defendant on the eve of trial would be appropriate. 20 Although the property proffered for Defendant's bond is valued more than double the 21 amount of bail required, the Court finds multiple issues with accepting the proffered property. 22 First, the Certificate of Title provided is dated nearly 14 years ago, where Defendant's step- 23 father is indicated as having a 50% interest in the property. Secondly, the Certificate of Title 24 25 7 The relevant part of the statute provides: 26 (a) A person for whom conditions of release are imposed pursuant to this Chapter, and who after twenty-four (24) hours from the time of release hearing continues to be detained as a result of his 27 inability to meet the conditions of release, shall, upon application, be entitled to have the conditions reviewed by the Court. ... 28' People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 6 of 10 does not indicate the nature of co-ownership, therefore the Court cannot determine whether or 1 not the other 50% owner's permission is required before accepting the property. Since 2 3 Defendant's trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, March 19, 2018, the parties will not have
4 sufficient time to address the concerns raised by the Court.
5 Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR RELEASE
6 ON A PROPERTY BOND.
7 D. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude 413 Evidence
8 On March 19, 2018., the Government informed the Court it intends to proffer the plea
9 agreement, judgment, and 2009 Declaration. In addition to Defendant's written Motion in
10 Limine, Defendant also argued the CF0304-09 is not relevant under GRE 413 and the two 11 instances (2009 conviction and 2017 allegation) are not sufficiently similar to pass the GRE 403 12 test. 13 The Court relies on Guam v. Chinel, 2013 Guam 24, which recognized evidence of a 14 Defendant's prior commission of another criminal sexual offense must be admissible under both 15 GRE 413 and 403. 16 1. GRE 413 analysis 17 GRE 413 recognizes an exception to the general rule prohibiting prior bad acts to show 18 propensity. Instead, this law allows "[i]n a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an 19 offense of criminal sexual conduct, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or 20 offenses of criminal sexual conduct is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any 21 matter to which it is relevant." GRE 413. Federal courts interpreting FRE 413, the Federal Rule 22 counterpart to GRE 413, recognize "three threshold rules for determining if a prior offense or 23 conduct is admissible under the rule," that is: 1) Defendant in the present case must be accused 24
26 must make any fact at issue more or less probable than if such evidence were excluded. Guam v. 27 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 7 of 10 Chinel, 2013 Guam 24,
4 Degree Felony) against a minor under the age of fourteen (14) or in violation of 9 GCA §
5 25.20(a)(l) 8 thus, the first factor is met. The second factor is also satisfied because Defendant's
6 past conviction in CF0304-09 was for one count of Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a
7 Second Degree Felony). Lastly, the third factor is also met because the government intends to
8 offer such conviction to show Defendant's propensity to commit sexual acts against minor
9 victims as allowed under GRE 413. Accordingly, the past conviction meets the threshold
10 requirements· under GRE 413. 11 2. GRE 403 Analysis 12 Even if a conviction is admissible under GRE 413, the Court may still deny admission of 13 such evidence for violating GRE 403. In fact, GRE 413(c), specifically provides that "[GRE 413] 14 · shall not be construed to limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule." 15 GRE 403 in its entirety reads as, "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative 16 value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or 17 misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation 18 of cumulative evidence." After Chine!, Guam Supreme Court requires trial courts to make a 19 "searching inquiry" in similar situations. Guam v. Chine!, 2013 Guam 24,
4 who were sleeping on or before· Defendant began the sexual contact. Although the incidents are
5 about eight (8) year apart, an intervening circumstance where Defendant was incarcerated from
6 2009-2011 and in 2013-2016 implies a closer proximity of both incidents. Additionally, the prior .
7 act is alleged to have occurred in the span of two months and on more than four occurrences
8 therefore suggesting the past act occurred frequently. Lastly, given the absence of physical
9 evidence, "there was a need for additional probative evidence." Guam v. Chine!, 2013 Guam 24,
10 <][ 45.
11 The Court, however, finds the 2009 Declaration is not admissible under GRE 403. The 12 Court finds offering only the declaration would cause confusion to the jury because Defendant's 13 plea agreement and judgment in CF0304-09 only pertains to one charge, while the declaration 14 refers to several other charges. Additionally, since the plea agreement and judgment will be 15 admitted, allowing the declaration is not necessary. In order to guard against the dangers of 16 unfair prejudice, the Court hereby DENIES the admission of the 2009 Declaration. 17 Ill 18 II 19 II 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 9 of 10 CONCLUSION 1 For the reasons provided above, the Court hereby DENIES: 2 3 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment;
4 2. Defendant's Motion for Continuance;
5 3. Defendant's Motion for Bail Redetermination;
6 4. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude 413 Evidence (plea agreement and judgment of
7 CF0304-09); and
8 5. People's Request to Admit the 2009 Declaration.
9 10 APR 06 2018 So ORDERED this-------------'-----....,----' nunc pro tunc March 14, 2018.
12 HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON 13 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 5!!:~VBCE ~M'. COURT BO]{ 23 1~cknowledge that a copy ~f the o~iginal hereto was placed 10 the 24 .;ourt bo;M , A~f) 1 25 26 oate: ql(o\tt.:Time: I 4~\( 27 28 People v. Jerome Joe Cruz; CF0047-18 D&O Re: Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions Page 10 of 10