Fl LE D CLERK OF COURT 1 2025 AUG 2 I PH 3: f:O 2 SUPERIOR COURT 3 OFGUAMf(!)'f 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. CF0650-24 8 vs. DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION IN 9 LIM/NE TO ADMIT EVIDENCE UNDER ERIC MATTHEW CRUZ, RULE 413 AND RULE 404(b)
11 Defendants.
13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came before the Honorable John C. Terlaje on People's Motion in Limine to 15 Admit Evidence under Rule 413 and Rule 404(b). The Court now issues the following order 16 GRANTING in part, and DENYING, in part, the People' s Motion in Limine. 17
18 PROCEDURE
19 On August 12, 2025, the People filed its Motion in Limine regarding Guam Rules of
20 Evidence ("GRE") 413 and Rule 404(b). People' s Mot. in Lim. The People' s Motion requests 21 that the Court allow admission of evidence that "the Defendant committed similar acts against 22 the child [B.C.] during the same time period'', "at least 20 times during 2nd and 3rd grade." The 23 People's Motion also asks that the Court admit evidence that the Defendant committed "one act 24 of cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of another minor child, C.C. 25 (DOB: 11/22/2002) between the years 2012 and 2014." Defendant Cruz was asked to file an 26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence 27 CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz Page 1 of7 1 Opposition by Monday, August 18, 2025, but no Opposition was filed. The Court reviewed the 2 motions and applicable law and makes the following ruling. 3 RULINGS 4 I. People's Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence Under Rule 413 5
6 The Court GRANTS the People's Motion to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 413 of the
7 GRE. The People have moved to allow testimony concerning similar sexual acts against the same
8 victim, as well as one act of cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of
9 another minor child, C.C. between the years 2012 and 2014 be admissible. Rule 413 states that
"in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of criminal sexual conduct, 11 evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of criminal sexual 12 conduct is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is 13 relevant." Rule 413 supersedes Rule 404(b)' s prohibition on similar conduct to show propensity. 14 In Chine!, the Guam Supreme Court used a three-factor test to determine whether a prior offense 15 or conduct is admissible under Rule 413. Chine!, 2013 Guam 24, 21. This test includes 1) the 16
17 present case must include criminal sexual conduct charges, 2) the evidence proffered must be
18 evidence of the defendant's commission of another past act of sexual assault, and 3) the past act
19 must be relevant.
20 The Court will first address the similar sexual acts against the same victim. This Court 21 has found that the current case involves criminal sexual conduct charges and the evidence 22 proffered includes uncharged instances of sexual acts between the defendant and the victim. 23 Furthermore, the Court finds these acts are relevant as they are similar to the acts charged in this 24 criminal sexual conduct case and involve the same defendant and victim. Therefore, under 25
26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz 27 Page 2 of7 1 Chine[, the evidence of the prior offenses against the same victim are admissible under Rule 413. 2 In relation to the evidence concerning the Defendant's alleged commission of "one act of 3 cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of another minor child between 4
5 2012 and 2014," the Court also finds that this evidence is admissible. As stated above, the current
6 case involves criminal sexual conduct charges, and the evidence proffered includes instances of
7 the Defendant's commission of other past acts of sexual assault. Finally, the Court finds these
8 acts are relevant as they are similar to the acts charged in this criminal sexual conduct case.
9 Although these acts do not involve the same victim, they do involve the same defendant and a
minor child, approximately four to six years before the conduct initially charged in this case. 11 Although this evidence may not be as relevant as the acts against the same victim, the Court 12 finds that they are sufficiently relevant under the Chine! test and therefore should be admissible 13 under Rule 413. 14 The Court has also considered a balancing test as required under Guam Rule of Evidence 15 403 to determine if the probative value of the 413 evidence is not substantially outweighed by 16
17 unfair prejudice to a defendant, using the framework provided in United States v. Lemay, 260
18 F.3d 1018. 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2001). Wesen, 2022 Guam 18 ,r 47. Under Lemay, the trial court
19 should consider, but is not limited to: 1) the similarity of the prior acts to the acts charged, 2) the 20 closeness in time of the prior acts to the acts charged, 3) the frequency of the prior acts, 4) the 21 presence or lack of intervening circumstances, and 5) the necessity of the evidence beyond the 22 testimonies already offered at trial. Chine!, 2013 Guam 24 ,r 36. Regarding the evidence of 23 similar sexual acts against the same victim, B.C., the Court finds that the charged sex acts include 24 similar conduct to the other acts the victim may discuss and occurred in a similar time period. 25
26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz 27 Page 3 of7 1 The People have represented that these acts occurred around 20 times, which is frequent over a 2 period of two years. The Court is not aware of any intervening circumstances, and finds that the 3 evidence is very probative and necessary for the jury to fully understand the circumstances 4
5 surrounded the charged offenses. Furthermore, the victim's testimony is likely to be the main
6 evidence offered at trial, and the Court sees no reason to limit her testimony when Rule 413
7 allows for its admission and it is likely to be more probative than prejudicial.
8 Regarding the evidence concerning the Defendant's alleged commission of "one act of 9 cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of another minor child [C.C.] 10 between 2012 and 2014," the Court finds that the charged sex acts regarding B.C. include similar 11 conduct to the acts regarding C.C. because both involve touching the primary genital area of a 12 minor on more than one occasion. The Court is not aware of intervening circumstances. 13 However, the events alleged by C.C. occurred about four to six years earlier in time than the 14 events alleged by B.C. in this case. Furthermore, the Court is not convinced that evidence of the 15
16 events alleged by C.C. are necessary beyond the testimonies already offered at trial to show the
17 jury whether the Defendant is guilty relevant to the acts alleged by B.C. specifically. Therefore,
18 because the Court believes that the probative value of the allegations made by C.C. is
19 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice for the Defendant, the Court will not 20 allow the admission of the evidence regarding C.C. in the present trial concerning the acts alleged 21 byB.C. 22 Therefore, the Court grants the Motion to Admit Evidence Pursuant to Rule 413 of the 23 GRE and admits evidence that "the Defendant committed similar acts against the child [B.C.] 24 during the same time period", "at least 20 times during 2nd and 3rd grade." However, the Court 25
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fl LE D CLERK OF COURT 1 2025 AUG 2 I PH 3: f:O 2 SUPERIOR COURT 3 OFGUAMf(!)'f 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. CF0650-24 8 vs. DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION IN 9 LIM/NE TO ADMIT EVIDENCE UNDER ERIC MATTHEW CRUZ, RULE 413 AND RULE 404(b)
11 Defendants.
13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came before the Honorable John C. Terlaje on People's Motion in Limine to 15 Admit Evidence under Rule 413 and Rule 404(b). The Court now issues the following order 16 GRANTING in part, and DENYING, in part, the People' s Motion in Limine. 17
18 PROCEDURE
19 On August 12, 2025, the People filed its Motion in Limine regarding Guam Rules of
20 Evidence ("GRE") 413 and Rule 404(b). People' s Mot. in Lim. The People' s Motion requests 21 that the Court allow admission of evidence that "the Defendant committed similar acts against 22 the child [B.C.] during the same time period'', "at least 20 times during 2nd and 3rd grade." The 23 People's Motion also asks that the Court admit evidence that the Defendant committed "one act 24 of cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of another minor child, C.C. 25 (DOB: 11/22/2002) between the years 2012 and 2014." Defendant Cruz was asked to file an 26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence 27 CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz Page 1 of7 1 Opposition by Monday, August 18, 2025, but no Opposition was filed. The Court reviewed the 2 motions and applicable law and makes the following ruling. 3 RULINGS 4 I. People's Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence Under Rule 413 5
6 The Court GRANTS the People's Motion to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 413 of the
7 GRE. The People have moved to allow testimony concerning similar sexual acts against the same
8 victim, as well as one act of cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of
9 another minor child, C.C. between the years 2012 and 2014 be admissible. Rule 413 states that
"in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of criminal sexual conduct, 11 evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of criminal sexual 12 conduct is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is 13 relevant." Rule 413 supersedes Rule 404(b)' s prohibition on similar conduct to show propensity. 14 In Chine!, the Guam Supreme Court used a three-factor test to determine whether a prior offense 15 or conduct is admissible under Rule 413. Chine!, 2013 Guam 24, 21. This test includes 1) the 16
17 present case must include criminal sexual conduct charges, 2) the evidence proffered must be
18 evidence of the defendant's commission of another past act of sexual assault, and 3) the past act
19 must be relevant.
20 The Court will first address the similar sexual acts against the same victim. This Court 21 has found that the current case involves criminal sexual conduct charges and the evidence 22 proffered includes uncharged instances of sexual acts between the defendant and the victim. 23 Furthermore, the Court finds these acts are relevant as they are similar to the acts charged in this 24 criminal sexual conduct case and involve the same defendant and victim. Therefore, under 25
26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz 27 Page 2 of7 1 Chine[, the evidence of the prior offenses against the same victim are admissible under Rule 413. 2 In relation to the evidence concerning the Defendant's alleged commission of "one act of 3 cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of another minor child between 4
5 2012 and 2014," the Court also finds that this evidence is admissible. As stated above, the current
6 case involves criminal sexual conduct charges, and the evidence proffered includes instances of
7 the Defendant's commission of other past acts of sexual assault. Finally, the Court finds these
8 acts are relevant as they are similar to the acts charged in this criminal sexual conduct case.
9 Although these acts do not involve the same victim, they do involve the same defendant and a
minor child, approximately four to six years before the conduct initially charged in this case. 11 Although this evidence may not be as relevant as the acts against the same victim, the Court 12 finds that they are sufficiently relevant under the Chine! test and therefore should be admissible 13 under Rule 413. 14 The Court has also considered a balancing test as required under Guam Rule of Evidence 15 403 to determine if the probative value of the 413 evidence is not substantially outweighed by 16
17 unfair prejudice to a defendant, using the framework provided in United States v. Lemay, 260
18 F.3d 1018. 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2001). Wesen, 2022 Guam 18 ,r 47. Under Lemay, the trial court
19 should consider, but is not limited to: 1) the similarity of the prior acts to the acts charged, 2) the 20 closeness in time of the prior acts to the acts charged, 3) the frequency of the prior acts, 4) the 21 presence or lack of intervening circumstances, and 5) the necessity of the evidence beyond the 22 testimonies already offered at trial. Chine!, 2013 Guam 24 ,r 36. Regarding the evidence of 23 similar sexual acts against the same victim, B.C., the Court finds that the charged sex acts include 24 similar conduct to the other acts the victim may discuss and occurred in a similar time period. 25
26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz 27 Page 3 of7 1 The People have represented that these acts occurred around 20 times, which is frequent over a 2 period of two years. The Court is not aware of any intervening circumstances, and finds that the 3 evidence is very probative and necessary for the jury to fully understand the circumstances 4
5 surrounded the charged offenses. Furthermore, the victim's testimony is likely to be the main
6 evidence offered at trial, and the Court sees no reason to limit her testimony when Rule 413
7 allows for its admission and it is likely to be more probative than prejudicial.
8 Regarding the evidence concerning the Defendant's alleged commission of "one act of 9 cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of another minor child [C.C.] 10 between 2012 and 2014," the Court finds that the charged sex acts regarding B.C. include similar 11 conduct to the acts regarding C.C. because both involve touching the primary genital area of a 12 minor on more than one occasion. The Court is not aware of intervening circumstances. 13 However, the events alleged by C.C. occurred about four to six years earlier in time than the 14 events alleged by B.C. in this case. Furthermore, the Court is not convinced that evidence of the 15
16 events alleged by C.C. are necessary beyond the testimonies already offered at trial to show the
17 jury whether the Defendant is guilty relevant to the acts alleged by B.C. specifically. Therefore,
18 because the Court believes that the probative value of the allegations made by C.C. is
19 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice for the Defendant, the Court will not 20 allow the admission of the evidence regarding C.C. in the present trial concerning the acts alleged 21 byB.C. 22 Therefore, the Court grants the Motion to Admit Evidence Pursuant to Rule 413 of the 23 GRE and admits evidence that "the Defendant committed similar acts against the child [B.C.] 24 during the same time period", "at least 20 times during 2nd and 3rd grade." However, the Court 25
26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence 27 CF00650-24, People a/Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz Page 4 of7 1 denies the Motion with respect to evidence that the Defendant committed "one act of cunnilingus 2 and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of another minor child, C.C. (DOB: 3 11/22/2002) between the years 2012 and 2014" and denies its admission. 4 II. People's Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence Under Rule 404(b) 5
6 The People also wish to admit under Guam Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence that the
7 Defendant was arrested in October 2021 for Family Violence against Antoinette Cruz, another
8 witness in the case. GRE Rule 404 creates a general prohibition on the admission of evidence of
9 other crimes, wrongs or acts for the purpose of showing criminal propensity, but 404(b) allows 10 such evidence when offered to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, 11 identity, or absence of mistake or accident." GRE 404(b). 12 The People bear the burden of establishing that a prior bad act: (1) proves a material 13 element of the crime currently charged, (2) is similar to the charged conduct, (3) is based on 14 sufficient evidence; and (4) is not too remote in time. People v. Evaristo, 1999 Guam 22, Jr 11 15 (citing United States v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817,822 (9th Cir. 1994)). Additionally, the probative 16
17 value of the relevant evidence must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice. See
18 People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 Jr 12, see also GRE 403. In considering the Hinton factors,
19 the Court finds that the alleged prior bad acts only tangentially, if at all, go toward proving a
20 material element of the crime. The People assert that introducing this evidence would refute any 21 defense that the victim is fabricating the story on Antionette's behalf or because of what the 22 Defendant allegedly did to Antoinette. The Court does not agree that the victim absolutely 23 "would have told police about the sexual assault in 2021" if this were the case. Therefore, the 24 Court does not believe that the prior bad act proves a material element of the crime currently 25
26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence 27 CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz Page 5 of7 1 charged. Furthermore, the conduct, Family Violence, is not sufficiently similar to the currently 2 charged conduct of Criminal Sexual Conduct to go toward the Defendant's intent in the present 3 case. Evidence of the alleged prior bad act is based on insufficient evidence as the only evidence 4
5 provided by the People is an October 2021 arrest of the Defendant which lacks a relevant plea
6 or judgment. Finally, the act must not be too remote in time. See Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 Jr 53.
7 Here, "prior acts" occurred about seven to eight years after the charged offenses. The Court
8 believes these factors weigh against allowing evidence of the previous bad act.
9 Under Guam Rule of Evidence 403, the probative value of these prior bad acts 1s
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See GRE 403. The only argument 11 identified by the People that this information is probative is their belief that introducing this 12 evidence would refute any defense that the victim is fabricating the story on Antionette's behalf 13 or because of what the Defendant allegedly did to Antoinette. The Court finds the probative 14 value of the evidence through this argument to be limited, particularly given the conditional and 15 attenuated nature of the People's argument. In contrast, the risk of unfair prejudice to the 16
17 Defendant if this evidence is admitted is significant. The purpose of the GRE Rule 404 is to
18 prevent the jury from hearing about other crimes or bad acts which could show propensity in the
19 minds of the jury. The Court finds that on this issue, the possible probative value of the evidence
20 regarding the 2021 arrest is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 21 Therefore, the Court hereby denies the People's Motion to admit evidence of the Defendant's 22 October 2021 arrest for Family Violence against Antoinette Cruz. 23
26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence 27 CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz Page 6 of7 1 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the People's Motion in Limine to Admit 3 Evidence under 413, but DENIES the People's Motion to Admit Evidence under 404(b), and 4 ORDERS the testimony concerning similar acts against the same victim, as well as one act of 5
6 cunnilingus and yearly acts of touching the primary genital area of another minor child, C.C.
7 (DOB: 11/22/2002) between the years 2012 and 2014 be admissible.
9 SO ORDERED, this J\~ 2025.
11 ;:~?~::(:r- ,._ 12
13 -~- '• ;':::. - 14
21 SIERVHCIE VHA IEl\llAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 22 copy of the original was e-mailed to:
24 Date: 2.1 Z7rime: 1 ~:\-3 indlau~ 25 Court of Guam
26 Decision and Order on Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence 27 CF00650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz Page 7 of7