People v. Cruz

Superior Court of Guam·Decided November 8, 2024·No. CF0647-24·Unknown

Opinion

F ILED .. CLERK CLERf{ OF OF COURT 1

2 20211 NOV 202~ NOV -8-8 PM PH l12 ~: 22?

3 SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF GUAM 531 OFGUAf1,4~ 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 6 THE PEOPLE OF OF GUAM GUAM 7

Plaintiff, Case No. CF0647-24 88

9 vs. DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS 110 0 INLIMINE LIMINE DUANE MANUEL CRUZ 11 Defendants. 12

14 INTRODUCTION

15 This This matter matter came before the came before the Honorable Honorable John John C. Terlaje on on November November 5, 5, 2024, for the

16 Jury Trial of ofDuane Duane Cruz Manuel. Manuel. The The Court Court addressed People'sNotice addressed People's Notice and andMotion Motion in in Limine Limine

17 to Admit Admit Evidence Evidence Under Rule Rule 413 and andPeople's People's Second SecondNotice Notice and andMotion Motionin in Limine Limine to to Admit Admit 18 Evidence Evidence Under Under Rule Rule 413. Public Defender 413. Public Defender Attorney William WilliamBischoff Bischoffappeared appeared for for Defendant Defendant 19 Duane Duane Manuel Cruz Cruz and and Assistant Assistant Attorney Attorney General General Grant Grant Olan Olan appeared for the appeared for the People People of 20 Guam ("People"). In Inaccordance accordance with with its its ruling rulingfrom fromthe thebench bench on on November 5,2024, 2024, the Court 21 now now issues thefollowing issues the following order orderGRANTING GRANTING the the People's People's Motion Motionin inLimine Limineand and the the People's 22 Second Motion MotioninLimine. Limine. 23

Decision Decision and and 26 Ordcr Order on Motions in Limine 27 CF0647-24,People People of Guam v. a/Guam v. DuaneManuel Manuel Cruz Page1of Page 1 of 5 1 1 PROCEDURE 2 On October 17, 2024,the 17, 2024, thePeople People filed filed its Motion in in Limine Limine regarding regarding Guam Rules Rules of 3 4 Evidence ("GRE") 413. Evidence ("GRE") 413. People's People's Mot. Mot. in in Lim. Lim. No Noopposition opposition was was filed filed by by the the Defense. Defense. 4 5 Additionally, Additionally, on October 31, 2024, October 31, 2024,the the People People filed filed its Second Motion in Lirnine Second Motion to Admit Limine to 5

6 6 Evidence Under Rule 413. 413. People's Second Mot. in in Lim. Lim. The The Court Court reviewed reviewedthe the motions motions and and

7 applicable law and and ruled from the bench on November November 5, 5, 2024.

8 RULINGS

9 The Court now addresses addresses each eachMotion Motion in Limine in in turn. turn. 10 I. People's People's Motion Motion in in Limine Limine to to Admit Admit Evidence Evidence Under Under Rule Rule 413 413 11 11 The Court GRANTS GRANTS the thePeople's People'sMotion Motiontotoadmit admitevidence evidencepursuant pursuant to to Rule Rule 413 413 of the 12 12 The People GRE. The People have have moved movedtotobe beable abletotointroduce introduce evidence evidence ofofthe theDefendant's Defendant's previous previous 13 13 Second Degree Second DegreeCriminal Criminal Sexual SexualConduct Conductconviction conviction in CF242-14. CF242-14. In Chine!, In Chined,the Guam Supreme 14 14 Court used used a three-factor test to three-factor test to determine determine whether whether a prior offense offense or conduct conduct is is admissible. admissible. 15 15 16 Chined, Chine!, 2013 24,r1[21. Guam 24 2013 Guam 21,This Thistest testincludes includes I) 1) the the present case case must mustinclude include criminal criminal sexual 16

17 17 conduct charges,2) conduct charges, 2) the the evidence evidence proffered must be be evidence of of the the defendant's defendant's commission of

18 18 another past past act act of of sexual assault, and 3) assault, and 3) the the past act must mustbe berelevant. relevant. This This Court Court has has found that

19 19 both the current current and andprevious previouscases casesare arecriminal criminal sexual sexualconduct conductcharges, charges,the theevidence evidenceproffered proffered

20 20 includes a plea agreement and andjudgment judgment of of a prior prior act act of ofsexual sexual assault. assault. Furthermore, the Court 21 finds this act is relevant as it is a similar type of ofcharge charge in in aa criminal criminal sexual sexual conduct conduct case. 22 The Court Court has also considered a balancing test as required under LinderGuam GuamRule Ruleof ofEvidence Evidence 23 403 403 to determine determine if the the probative value of ofthe the 413 413 evidence evidence is is not not substantially substantially outweighed by 24 unfair prejudice prejudice to a defendant, using the defendant, using the framework provided in United United States States v. Leman, Lemay, 260 25 Decision and Decision and 26 Order on Motions Motions in Limine Liming 27 People of CF0647-24, People a/Guam Guam v. Duane Manuel Manuel Cruz Page 2 of 5 Page 11 F.3d 1018. 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2001). Wezen, Wesen, 2022 Guam Guam 18 ~ 47. Under Lemmy, 18 1147. Lemay, the trial court 2 should consider, consider, but but is not limited limited to: to: 1) 1) the similarity similarity of ofthe the prior prior acts to the acts charged, 2) the 3 4 closeness in time of of the the prior prior acts acts to the acts charged, 3) the frequency of of the the prior prior acts, 4) the 4 5 presence or lack of intervening circumstances, circumstances, and and 5) the the necessity necessity of of the the evidence evidence beyond the 5

66 testimonies already offered at at trial. Chine/, 2013 Guam trial. Chanel, Guam 24 ~ 36. 24 1] 36. The The Court finds that the prior

7 acts as as charged charged in CF242-14 are are similar in nature to the charges in the present case, there are no

8 intervening circumstances circumstances the the Court Court is is aware aware of, of, and and the the evidence is necessary beyond other

99 testimony at trial. trial. Although these events occurred approximately approximately nine years years apart and there is 10 . 4 . . . . only evidence only evidence of ofone one poor prioract, act, the the law does does not specify specify aa deadline or frequency at which which evidence evidence

11 type cannot of this type cannot be be brought brought in. in. Therefore, Therefore, this this Court Court finds, finds, under the the balancing balancing test, test, the 12 12 probative value of the 413 evidence is probative value is not not substantially substantially outweighed by unfair unfair prejudice to a 13 13 Defendant, and may be admitted under Rule 413. 14 14 II. II.People's People's Second Second Motion in Liming Limine to to Admit AdmitEvidence Evidence Under Rule Rule 413 413 15 15

the People's The Court GRANTS the People's Second Second Motion Motion to to admit admit evidence evidence pursuant pursuant to Rule 16 16

17 17 413 of the GRE regarding testimony from the victim in this showing that Defendant Duane Cruz

18 18 engaged in engaged in unwanted unwanted sex sex with with the the minor minor victim victim Eve five or or six times in addition to one of six times of the charged

19 incidents. Applying Applying the the same same three-factor three-factor test test as as above, above, the the Court Court has found that the present case

20 20 does include criminal sexual conduct charges, that the evidence proffered regarding the other 21 instances of unwanted unwanted sex with with the the minor minor is is evidence evidence of the the defendant's defendant's commission of another commission of 22 . act of sexual assault, of sexual assault, and and that that these these acts acts are are relevant relevant as as they they involve involve the the same same type type of act act 23 involving the same Defendant and the same victim. 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Cruz, (superctguam 2024).

People v. Cruz (People v. Cruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.