People v. Cruz

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: February 19, 2021
• Docket: CF0447-20
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1E 1 Qazlfaa VS P 2: 1='i~ 2 4-¢,."*'\l I"'\I ii I . ;. l,;L=';j'{a*¢ : J s u 91' *

4 Sy'- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0447-20 ) 7 Plaintiff, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. 8 vs. ) MOTION FOR COMPETENCY ) HEARING: CHILD WITNESS 9 VINCENT JOHN ANDERSON CRUZ, ) 10 Aka VINCENT J.A. CRUZ aka BEN ) DOB: 02/14/1980 ) 11 ) Defendant. ) 12 ) 13 On December 22, 2020, the grand jury returned a true bill indicting Defendant Vincent 14 . John Anderson Cruz aka Vincent J.A. Cruz, aka Ben ("Defendant") of Possession of an 15 16 Unregistered Firearm (As a Third Degree Felony) and Unlawful Restraint (as a Misdemeanor).

17 Indictment (Dec. 22, 2020). J.C. (DOB: 11/18/2014) is identified as a witness in the People's

18 Witness List filed on February 12, 2021 .

19 On November 27, 2020, Defendant filed his Motion for Competency Hearing of Child 20 Witness J.c. (DOB: 11/18/2014)(the "Motion") . The Motion seeks a hearing in order *IO 21 determine whether J.C., who "was 5 years old at the time of the alleged offenses has the 22 basic comprehension and mental capacity to independently remember, recount, and swear to the 23

24 truth of the events alleged." Mot..at 3.

25 Under 6 GCA § 601, every person is presumed competent to be a witness unless 26 otherwise provided under the rules. A trial court has wide discretion to determine the 27 competency of a witness. People v. Taifano, No. CR86;00025A, 1987 WL 109881, *3 (D. 28

Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Re. Child Witnesses Criminal Case No. CF0447-20, Page 1 of 2 1 Guam App. Div. 1987). Guam law does not prescribe criteria to challenge or examine the

2 competency of child witness.l Children are competent witnesses if they "appreciate the 3 difference between truth and falsehood" and possess the "required capacity for observation, 4 recollection and communication." Pocatello v. United States, 395 F.2d 115 (9th Cir. 1968).2 5 In this case, Defendant seems to base the request to examine the competency of the child 6

7 victims on the basis of age alone. Based upon the matters set forth in Defendant's Motion and

8 the arguments of counsel during the hearing, the Court finds no evidence proffered by

9 Defendant necessary for the Court to ind that the victim is incompetent to speak truthfully 10 about her personal knowledge. For this reason, the Court will hold the Defendant's Motion in 11 Liming in abeyance. If it appears to the Court that a child witness appears unable to testify 12 13 truthfully about matters of personal knowledge, the Court shall conduct the appropriate inquiry

14 as required.

15 CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies Defendant's Motion, however, the 17 Defendant may renew the motion should there be an articulable reason other than age upon 18 19 which the Court may inquire by hearing into the competency of the child witness .

SO ORDERED this FEB 1 9 2021 , 20

22 HONORAB ARIA T. CENZON 23 JUDGE ERIOR COURT OF GUAM

24 1 Compare 18 U.S.C. § 3509(c) (compelling proof of incompetency permits child competency examination to determine child's abili.ty to understand and answer simple questions), and U.S. v. Allen J., 127 F.3d 1292, 1294 (10th 25 Cir. 1997) (mental capacity is a question of credibility and not competence under Fed. R. Evid. 601), with State v. Allen, 424 P.2d 1021, 1022 (Wash. 1967) (At common law, "[t]he true test of the competency of a young child as a 26 witness consists of the following: (1) an understanding of the obligation to speak the truth on the witness stand, (2) the mental capacity at the time of the occurrence concerning which he is to testify, to receive an accurate impression 27 of it, (3) a memory sufficient to retain an independent recollection of the occurrence, (4) the capacity to express in words his memory of the occurrence, and (5) the capacity to understand simple questions about it."). 28 2 Pocatello involved the testimony of a 5-year old victim of forcible rape.

Decision and Order Re. Defendants Motion Re. Child Witnesses Criminal Case No. CF0447-20; Page 2 of 2