People v. Cruz

Opinion

F i L ED

SUPER§OR COURT

l UF GUAM 2 zasznusla AHu=30 is CLERK Q; JRT 4

5 S`z'f

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

8 .THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0169-22 9 vs.

10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 JOHN LEONARD MATA CRUZ aka John 12 Leonard Cruz, 13 Defendant.

14

15 INTRODUCTION

16 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on Defendant JOHN LEONARD

17 MATA CRUZ aka John Leonard Cruz's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss, tiled May 16,

18 2022. Defendant is represented by Assistant Public Defender John P. Morison. The People of

19 Guam ("the Government") are represented by Assistant Attorney General Grant Olan. Having

20 reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the

21 following Decision and Order.

22 BACKGROUND

23 Defendant was indicted with one count of Aggravated Assault (As a Third Degree

24 Felony) with attached Special Allegation: Deadly Weapon Used in a Felony and one count of

25 Leaving the Scene -with Injuries (As a Third Degree Felony). (Indictment, Mar. 29, 2022). The

26 matter proceeded to trial and a jury of twelve heard sworn testimony from the AG Investigator

27 Frank Santos, victim Shaun Pangelinan, Donicia Taitague, S.W. (DOB: 12/14/2004), GPD Officer Martin Oliva and GFD Medic Andrew Escamillo. After the Government rested its case, 28

People v. Cruz Case No. CF0169-22 Decision and Order l Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to 8 GCA § 100.10 and to dismiss the

2 Second Charge pursuant to 9 GCA § 7.67. The Court denied both motions. Jurors then heard

3 sworn testimony from Defendant's wife, Tricia Cruz. After Defendant rested his case, the

4 matter was sent to the jury for deliberation. On May 10, 2022, the jury acquitted Defendant of

5 the First Charge of Aggravated Assault (As a Third Degree Felony) and its attached Special

6 Allegation: Deadly Weapon Used in a Felony and convicted Defendant of the Second Charge of

7 Leaving the Scene with Injuries (As a Third Degree Felony).

8 On May 16, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. On May 26, 2022, the

9 Government filed its Opposition. No Reply was filed. The Court subsequently placed the

10 matter under advisement without further hearing. See Order Placing Defendant's Mot. Dismiss

11 Under Advisement & Vacating Sentencing Hearing set for 08/05/202, Jun. 29, 2022.

12 DISCUSSION

13 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the Second Charge of Leaving the Scene with

14 Injuries (As a Third Degree Felony) because it is inappropriate "given the self-defense aspect of

15 this case, the fact Mr. Cruz could not legally comply with the statutes requirements, and that the

16 statute contemplates an accident that was missing from the evidence presented." (Mot. Dismiss

17 at 4, May 16, 2022). The Government objects, arguing that a dismissal motion pursuant to 9

18 GCA § 7.67 should have been filed prior to the commencement of trial and that it was not

19 inconsistent for the jury to find him guilty of Leaving the Scene with Injuries, despite finding

20 him not guilty of Aggravated Assault or the lesser offense of Assault. See generally, Opp'n,

21 May 26, 2022.

22 Under Guam law:

23 The court shall dismiss a prosecution if, havingregard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it 24 finds that the defendant's conduct:

25 (a) Was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly 26 negated by the person whose interest was infringed nor 27 inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense,

28

People v. Cruz Case No. CFOl69-22 Decision and Order

(b) Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be 1 prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an 2 extent too tn'vial to warrant the condemnation of conviction, or 3 (c) Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be 4 regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense. The court shall not dismiss a prosecution under this Subsection 5 without filing a written statement of its reasons. 6 9 G.C.A. § 7.67. Section 7.67 "directs the trial court to dismiss a prosecution if it finds that the 7 defendant's conduct falls within at least one of three distinct circumstances." People v. Perez, 8 2004 Guam 4 ii 9 (emphasis in original). The "statute recognizes that it would be unrealistic to

9 believe that judges never enter a finding of not guilty even though guilt is proven where a 10 conviction is considered to be inappropriate, and therefore authorizes the trial court to mitigate 11 the general provisions of the criminal law to prevent absurd applications." Id. at 1110 (quoting 9 12 G.C.A. § 7.67 cut.). Section 7.67 is modeled after Model Penal Code § 2.12, which has been 13 adopted by New Jersey, Maine, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania.I Id. at i] ll, fn. 3. "[T]he language 14 of the statute requires the trial court to dismiss the prosecution on its own accord, upon a 15 determination that the defendant's conduct involved De minimum infractions." Com. v. Gemelli,

16 474 A.2d 294, 300 (Pa. 1984) (citation omitted). Therefore, although not typically moved for 17 after trial and conviction, the Court does not find that the Motion is untimely.

18 Here, Defendant was found guilty by the jury to the Second Charge of Leaving the 19 Scene with Injuries (As a Third Degree Felony). The offense of leaving the scene with injuries 20 is set forth in 16 G.C.A. § 3501, entitled "Accidents". Section 3501 provides in relevant part 21 that;

22 The operator, or owner, if present, of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting 23 in injury or death to any person or damage to any real or personal property, shall, immediately after such accident, give his full name, address, the registration 24 number of his vehicle and exhibit his operator's license to the persons struck or 25 the operator or occupant of any other vehicle involved in such accident, or the

26

27 l Guam and Pennsylvania follow the Model Penal Code and use the mandatory term "shall" See Model Penal Code § 2.12 and 18 PA. STAT. AND CONS. STAT. ANN. § 312. New Jersey, Maine, and Hawaii substituted the 28 mandatory "shall" with the permissive "may." dismissal of a prosecution as de minims

People v. Cnlz Case No. CFOi69-22 Decision and Order owner or custodian of any real or personal property damaged in such accident, 1 unless the person struck or the operator of the other vehicle involved or the owner 2 or custodian of the real or personal property involved shall signify that no injuries 3 or damages have been sustained.

4 16 G.C.A. § 3501(b). Section 3501 further provides that "[a]ny person violating the provision

5 of this Section by failing to stop after being involved in an accident resulting in injury to any

6 person, other than himself, or death of any person shall be guilty of a felony." 16 G.C.A. §

7 3501(i). Thus, Defendant must have been involved in an accident with his vehicle resulting in

8 injury or death, and have failed to immediately stop and provide information to the person

9 struck. , .

10 To detemiine whether Defendant's violation of section 3501 should be considered de

11 minims, the Court looks to the factors set forth inState v. Zarrilli, 523 A.2d 284 (N.J.Super. Ct.

12 Law Div. 1987). See Perez, 2004 Guam 4 11 12. The Zarrilli court stated that "[t]he one

13 question to be asked and answered in response to a dh minims motion is ... What is the risk of

14 harm to which society is exposed by defendant's conduct?" The factors to consider such

15 question include: "(a) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense; (b) the

16 existence of contraband, (c) the amount and value of property involved, (d) the use or threat of

17 violence, and (e) the use of weapons." Perez, 2004 Guam 4 1112. "Defendant's conduct under

18 the de minimum statute is not viewed in isolation, but coupled with the surrounding

19 circumstances which play an integral part herein to explain the what, why and how of

20 defendant's intent."State v. Cabana, 716 A.2d 576, 579 (NJ. Super. Ct. Law. Div. 1997).

21 Defendant argues that the statute "is in no way intended to punish those who use force to

22 defend themselves against a violent attacker or to burden them with confronting their attacker to

23 provide information not in existence." (Mot. Dismiss at 5). As an initial matter, the Court notes

24 that the fact that Defendant did not have a valid license and/or registration does not in of itself

25 render the offense De minims and does not excuse any violation of 16 G.C.A. § 3501(b). The

26 failure to abide by other Guam traffic laws does not excuse a defendant from following other

27 laws. In this case, Defendant was charged with recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily

28 injury to Shaun Pangelinan with his vehicle and then having left the scene without giving his

People v. Cruz Case No. CF0169-22 Decision and Order 1 full name, address, vehicle registration and license information to Shaun Pangelinan.

2 (Indictment, Mar. 29, 2022). Defendant asserted the defenses of self-defense and defense of

3 others to the charge of Aggravated Assault (As a Third Degree Felony) and was acquitted of the

4 charge and any lesser included offense by the jury. Testimony at trial included facts that

5 Defendant and the victim, Mr. Pangelinan, were involved in an altercation in the middle of the

6 road where Mr. Pangelinan had a machete and threatened Defendant with it. Defendant's wife

7 was also present in the car. Thus, either the jury found that Defendant was acting in self-

8 defense or the defense of others or that the Government had not disproved that he was not acting

9 in self-defense or the defense of others.2 As to any injuries sustained by Mr. Pangelinan,

10 Defendant argues that "[i]f Mr. Pangelinan's injuries were self-inflicted as he attacked Mr.

11 Cruz's moving vehicle, this does not qualify as an accident but is instead a self-infiicted injury

12 sustained during an attack" and "[i]f Mr. Pangelinan's injuries were caused by Mr. Cruz as he

13 acted in self-defense, it is illogical to expect Mr. Cruz to stop his car and begin providing

14 information to someone with a machete who had just attacked him and was continuing to yell

15 threats towards him." (Mot. Dismiss at 5). In light of the jury's finding that Defendant was not

16 guilty of the charge of Aggravated Assault (As a Third Degree Felony) because he acted in self-

17 defense or the defense of others, the Court finds that requiring Defendant to stay and give his

18 information to his attacker is not the "harm or evil sought tO be prevented by the law defining

19 the offense." Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 2 The jury was instructed that the Goveminent must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not 28 act in self-defense or in the defense of third persons. (Jury Instruction 6K & AM).

People v. Cnzz Case No. CF0169-22 Decision and Order l CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

3 The Court hereby dismisses the conviction of Leaving the Scene with Injuries (As a Third

4 Degree Felony).

5

6 IT IS SO ORDERED this Wday of August, 2022.

7

8

9 HONORABLE VERNON p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

People v. Cnzz Case No. CFOI69-22 Decision and Order