People v. Cruz

Opinion

F LE I

CLERK OFCOURT 1

11

zazsauszz 2U25AUG 22 PH >

Pf'f3r BE

08

2 JO

3 glpglgp~°OURT/ OF GI IAN!

GUAM

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

COURT OF

OF GUAM

GUAM

5

THE PEOPLE OF OF GUAM,

GUAM,

6 6

7 Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. CF0650-24

8 vs. DECISION AND ORDER TO SEVER CHARGES FOR TRIAL

9 ERIC MATTHEW CRUZ, 10 Defendants. Defendants.

11 11

12 12

13 13 INTRODUCTION

14 14 This matter came before the Honorable Honorable John C. Terlaje Terlaje on

on Defendant

Defendant Eno

Eric Matthew

Matthew

15 15 Cruz's Motion Motion to

to Sever

Sever Charges

Charges for Trial, filed

filed August

August 15,

15, 2025.

2025. Attorney

Attorney Brycen Breazeale Breazeale

16 16 represents Defendant Eric Matthew Matthew Cruz,

Cnlz, and Assistant Attorney General Christine S. Tenorio 17 17 represents the People represents the People of Guam Guam ("People"). The Court ("People"). The Court now now issues

issues the

the following

following order

order

18 18 GR.ANTING, Defendant's Motion GRANTING, Defendant's Motion to Sever Charges for Trial.

19 19 PROCEDURE

20 20 On August 15, 2025, Defendant filed tiled his Motion

Motion to Sever Charges for Trial. The People 21

22 of Guam Guam filed filed its

its Opposition

Opposition to

to the

the Motion

Motion on

on August

August 18,

18, 2025.

2025. The Court

Court has reviewed the

23 23 documents and applicable law and finds that a reply brief brief from

from the Defendant is not necessary.

24 The Court grants grants the

the Defendant's

Defendant's Motion based on on the

the following

following analysis.

analysis.

25

26 Decision and Order to Sever Sever Charges

Charges for

for Trial

Trial

27 CF0650-.24, CF0650~24, People of

of Guam v.v. Eric Matthew Cruz Page1 of 5

BACKGROUND

2 On October On October 4, 2024, the People filed filed an

an indictment

indictment against Defendant Eric Cruz 3 4 regarding the alleged sexual abuse of People's Indictment of victim, B.C. People's Indictment of ofEric

Eric Cruz.

Cruz. Trial was

4 set to to move forward forward on

on August

August 27,

27, 2025.

2025. On

On August

August 14,

14, 2025, the People filed filed aa Superseding

Superseding

5

6 Indictment that included included charges

chargesbased

basedon

onthe

thealleged

alleged sexual

sexualabuse

abuseof

ofaasecond

secondvictim,

victim, C.C.

C.C.

7 Superseding Indictment. The People People assert

assert that during an interview with victim B.C. on August

8 7, 2025, the the People

People discovered for the first first time

time that

that the

the Defendant

Defendant allegedly

allegedly committed

committed sexual

9 abuse against another minor, minor, C.C.,

C.C., during

during an

an earlier

earlier period

period in

in time.

time. People's

People's Opposition to

10 10 Defendant's Defendant's Mot., Mot.; Defendant's

Defendant's Mot.

Mot. to

to Sever

Sever Charges.

Charges. The People then interviewed interviewed C.C. on

11 August 12, 2025 2025 to

to confirm

confirm the

the allegations.

allegations. People's

People's Opposition to

to Defendant's

Defendant's Mot. The

12 alleged alleged sexual sexual misconduct

misconduct against

against B.C.

B.C. occurred

occurredbetween

betweenJune

June 4, 2018

2018 and

and June 3, 2019,

June 3, 2019, while

while

13 13 the alleged misconduct against C.C.

C.C. occurred

occurred between 2012 and and 2014.

2014.Defendant's

Defendant's Mot.

Mot. to

to

14 14 Sever Charges. There is at least a four-year gap between these Sever these two two allegations with two

15 15 separate victims. Although both charges are about Criminal Sexual Conduct Conduct offenses, the facts 16 16

17 17 in B.C.'s 's case

case do not require

require or

or rely

rely on

on C.C.

C.C.'s testimony.

18 18 R U L I N GS

S

19 19 Under Guam law, two or or more

more offenses

offenses "may

"maybe

becharged

chargedin

inthe

the same

same indictment

indictment if the

the

20 20 offenses charged are are of

of the same or

or similar

similar character

character or based on the same same act

act or

or transaction or

21 on two or more acts or or transactions

transactions connected

connected together

together or constituting

constituting parts

parts of

of aacommon

common scheme

scheme

22 or plan.39" 8 G.C.A. § .35(a) (1976). In § 55.35(a) In the case at hand, the charges are not based on on the same

23 23 act or or transaction, transaction, and they are not acts or or transactions

transactions that are connected together or or constitute

constitute

24

25

26 Decision Decision and

and Order

Order to Sever Charges

Chargesfor

forTrial

Trial

27 CF0650-24, People People of

of Guam v. Eric

v. Eric Matthew Cruz

Page 2 of

of 5

parts of aa common parts of common scheme scheme or

or plan.

plan. However,

However, ititappears

appears that

that the charges are

are of the same or aa

2 similar similar character, character, despite taking place several years years apart.

apart.

3 Though Guam Though Guam law

law favors

favors joinder

jointer of

of charges, see 8

charges, see 8 G.C.A.

G.C.A. §§ 65.30(a),

65.30(a), the

the court

court "may

"may

4

order an election election or

or separate tnlalsof

separate trials of counts"

counts" where

where "it

"it appears the defendant appears the defendant...is .. prejudiced by

5

6 a jointer of a joinder ofoffenses..."

offenses ... "88G.C.A.

G.C.A.§ §65.35.

65.35.Generally,

Generally,charges

charges should

should be

be severed

severed when joining

when joining

7 charges would would endanger a criminal defendant's defendant's Fifth

Fifth Amendment

Amendmentrights

rights to

to aa fair

fair trial

trial or

or the

the rights

8 afforded to afforded to criminal criminal defendants in the defendants in the Guam

GuamBill

Bill of Rights. 8

of Rights. GCA §§65

8 GCA .35, see

65.35; see 48

48 U.S.C.

U.S.C. §§

9 142lb(u).

1421b(u). To Todetermine

determinewhether

whether joining

joiningcharges

charges would

wouldendanger

endanger aa defendant's

defendant's rights,

rights, courts

courts

10 look look to 1)

1) the possibility

possibility of

ofprejudice

prejudiceresulting

resulting from

from differences

differencesin

inthe

the defenses

defenses aa defendant might 11 11 provide ififthe the charges

charges were severed,

severed, 2)

2) whether

whether aa defendant would would wish

wish to

to testify regarding one

12 12 charge, but but not

not another,

another, and

and3)

3) whether

whetherwitness

witnesstestimony

testimony would

would be

be admissible

admissible in

in each case

case if

if

13 13 the charges were were severed. US.

US. v.v. Lewis,

Lewis,787

787F.2d

F.2d1318,

1318, 1321 (9 th Cir.

1321 (9th Cir. 1989),US

1989); US.v.v.Jordan,

Jordan, 112

112

14 14 st

15 F.3d 14, 14, 16

16 (1St Cir. 1997).

Cir.

15 I. Severance of the charges charges based

based on

on differences in defenses and Defendant's plans defenses and plans 16 16

17 17 regarding testimony regarding testimony

18 18 The Defense Defense argues

argues that the

the Defendant

Defendant would

would be

be prejudiced

prejudiced because

becauseof

of aa difference

difference in

19 19 legal strategy strategy applied to each alleged victim. However, However, Defendant

Defendant failed

failed to

to describe

describe how

how such

such

20 strategies would be different, and failed to specifically show show how

how his

his decision

decision to testify would 21 be impacted by by a joined

joined case.

case. The

The People

People argue

argue that

that "Defendant's

"Defendant's one

one sentence

sentence hypothetical

hypothetical

22 assertion [thathis assertion [that hisprivilege privilege against

against self-incrimination self-incrimination would

would be

be compromised]

compromised] is

is insufficient

insufficient to

23 prove the the existence

existence of

of prejudice."

prejudice." People's

People's Opposition to

to Defendant's

Defendant's Mot.

Mot. at

at 6.

6. Despite

Despite the

the

24 lack of of detail

detail in

in Defendant's

Defendant'sassertion,

assertion, the

the Court

Court agrees

agrees that

that the Defendant could be prejudiced 25

26 Decision Decision and

and Order to Sever Chargesfor Sever Charges for Trial

Trial

27 CF0650-24, People of

of Guam v.v. Eric

Eric Matthew Cruz

Page 3 of 5

11

in preparing preparing aa defense defense for

for both sets

sets of

of allegations and in deciding and in deciding whether

whether to

to testify

testify for both,

2 either, or neither sets of allegations. The The Court

Court agrees

agrees that that, were Defendant to that it is possible that, 3 4 elect to testify, testify, he

he may

may become confused or confuse the jury regarding become confused the difference between regarding the

4 5 the events and victims.

events and Court recognizes victims. The Court Defendant may recognizes that the Defendant choose to may not choose to testify 5 6 6 regarding as is regarding either alleged victim, as his right, is his but believes right, but prudent to believes itit isis prudent sever the to sever charges

the charges

7 7 regardless. However, even if regardless. However, if this this were

were not

not the

the case, the case, the Court would still choose to sever the

8 charges based based on

onthe of testimony.

inadmissibility of

theinadmissibility

9 II.

II.Severance Severanceof

ofthe

thecharges

charges based on admissibility of evidence based on in both evidence in both trials

10 The Court

Court grants the Defendant's grants the Motion to Sever Defendant's Motion Charges for Sever Charges Trialon for Trial the basis

onthe that

basis that

11 11 evidence of ofC.C.'s

C.C.'sabuse

abusewould

wouldnot

notbe

be admissible B.C.'sallegations regarding B.C.'s

admissible regarding underRule allegationsunder 403.

Rule403

12 12 As Court stated in aa prior the Court As the order, C.C.

prior order, 's testimony C..C.'s is inadmissible testimony is in aatrial inadmissible in involving only the trialinvolving

13 13 charges regardingB.C. charges regarding B.C. Under Under GRE

GRE Rule

Rule 403

403 the

theprobative

probativevalue

valueof

of C.C. testimony to prove C.C.'s testimony

14 14 allegations made by B.C. would would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, be substantially

15 15

confusion of of the issues, or misleading issues, or misleading the thejury. andOrder Decision and

jury.Decision onMot.

Orderon inLimine

Mot. in to Admit

Limine to Admit

16 16

17 17 Evidence Under Rule Rule 413 and Rule

413 and Rule 404(b) 21, 2025).

at 44 (Aug. 21,

404(b) at the of the

joind~J of

the joindqr

2025). Thus, ifif the

18 18 charges regarding sexual sexual misconduct against C.C. and against C.C. B.C. was allowed, testimony that would and B.C.

19 19 otherwise be be inadmissible

inadmissible because

because of substantial unfair prejudice against Defendant would be of substantial

20 admitted into trial. Therefore, Therefore,to

toprevent

preventunfair

unfairprejudice must be charges must

the charges

Defendant,the

againstDefendant,

prejudiceagainst

21 severed.

22

23

24 24

25 25

26 Decision Decisionand

and Order

Order to Sever Charges

Charges for

for Trial

Trial

CF0650-24, People of Guam v.

of Guam Eric Matthew Cruz v. Eric

27 27 Page Page 4 of 5

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

2 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's. Motion to Sever Charges 3 . .

and·ORDERS that Charge One, and Charge Two Counts Three, Four and Five of the 4 Superseding Indictment be separated into a separate trial from Charge 2 Counts One and Two 5

6 of the Superseding Indictment.

7·

8

9 SO ORDERED, this J..~~ day of ~3 vts..t 2025.

10

11

12

13 HONORABLE JOHN C. TE,KL~w-e""'

Judge, Superior Court of Guam 14

15

16

17

18

19

20 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL

21 · I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to:

22 p,,1.:,., APO 23

24

25

26 Decision and Order to Sever Charges for Trial ·27 CF0650-24, People of Guam v. Eric.Matthew Cruz Page 5 of 5