ZOI9 JAN I 0 PM f: 3&. CLERK Of CDURT Bv:··' @ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OJ? GUAM ---·---· - PEOPLE OF GUAM, Superior Court Case No. CF0394-17
Plaintiff,
vs. DECISION AND ORDER re JOSEPH ROBERT CUMMINGS, PEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS Defendant.
In the upcoming trial of Defendant Joseph Robert Cummings for Assault of a Peace
Officer and other charges, the People seek to admit evidence of Cummings's prior conviction for
Assault. Having considered the parties' arguments, Guam Rule of Evidence 404(b), and
applicable laws, the Court finds that such evidence is proper and admissible and therefore
GRANTS the People's Motion to Admit Evidence of Prior Bad Acts.
I. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND
. Cummings faces charges of Assaulting a Peace Officer, Assault, and Resisting Arrest.
According to the People, on or about July 8, 2017, after Cummings allegedly committed an
assault, police arrived and notified Cummings that he was being placed under arrest. See Mot. at
2 (July 19, 2018). Once confronted, Cummings resisted arrest "by forcing his hands apart and
turning his body," "kicked wildly at police ... [and] attempted to headbutt Officer L.J. Osborn's
face." !d. CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page2 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
Almost two months before this altercation, on May 12, 2017, Cummings pled guilty to
Assault (as a Misdemeanor), as a lesser included offense of Assault on a Peace Officer (as a 3rd
Degree Felony). See People v. Cummings, CF0660-16 (Plea Agreement, May 15, 2017).
According to the People, in CF0660-16, "Defendant also cursed at officers; [took] the same
aggressive stance while clenching his fists, and while in custody had spit in an officer's face."
Mot. at 2. The assault itself occurred on or about November 12, 2016. See People v. Cummings,
CF0660-16 (Magistrate's Compl., Decl., July 10, 2017).
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
The People seek to admit evidence of the circumstances underlying the assault charged in
CF0660-16 to show Cummings's intent and absence of mistake in this case. Guam Rule of
Evidence 404(b) governs the admission of prior crimes and bad acts and states:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
An analysis ofRule 404(b) evidence proceeds under a four-part test by which the People must
establish "that the evidence (1) proves a material element of the crime currently charged; (2) is
similar to the charged conduct; (3) is based on sufficient evidence; and (4) is not too remote in
time." People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ~~ 12, 47 (quoting People v. Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~
8). Lastly, if the People satisfy their burden on all four factors, then the trial court determine
"whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice." 2015 Guam 2 ~ 47 (quoting Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~ 8); see also GRE 403.
A. Material Element of Crime Charged: Intent or Absence of Mistake
ORIGINAL CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page3 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
The People may prove intent or absence of mistake by introducing evidence of a prior
crime or bad act. See Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~ 12. In Palisoc, the prosecution alleged that the
defendant committed theft, which requires proof of intentional conduct. !d. ~ 13. The Court
ruled that the evidence that Palisoc committed a prior auto theft helped to show that he
committed the instant thefts with the requisite intent. Id. Key to this analysis was the fact that
Palisoc committed the prior act and instant act with the same intent. Id.
The People contend that Cummings' prior bad act of assaulting an officer tends to prove
his intent to assault a peace officer in this case. The mens rea for both assaults is recklessness.
Cummings' plea agreement in CF 0660-16 concedes that "he did recklessly cause or attempt to
cause bodily injury to another." People v. Cummings, CF0660-16 (Plea Agreement).
Recklessness, a material element of assault on a peace officer, is defined as follows:
A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to attendant circumstances or the result of his conduct when he acts in awareness of a substantial risk that the circumstances exist or that his conduct will cause the result and his disregard is unjustifiable and constitutes a gross deviation from the.standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
9 GCA § 4.30(a). The mens rea of recklessness implicates that the person must consciously
disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk and that the person measures this risk by
circumstances of which he is aware. Allowing the People to present evidence that Cummings
knew his conduct would create a risk that he subsequently disregarded because he has previous
experience with a police officer under similar circumstances does tend to show that he acted
recklessly in this case.
Alternatively, the People offer that the proposed evidence demonstrates an absence of
mistake, i.e., that Cummings "knew or should have known" that the police were performing their
ORIGINAL CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page4 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
duties. Reply at 4. If the People can demonstrate that Cummings had this knowledge, then his
potential claim of self-defense would be meritless. Under 9 GCA § 7.86, the use offorce in
self-defense is not justifiable "[t]o resist an arrest which the defendant knows is being made by a
· peace officer in the performance of his duties." Cummings' prior charge of assault involved a
police officer and reflects that he has experience with being arrested and knows what to expect
from officers performing their official duties. As such, the Court finds that Cummings's prior
charge could show that he knew the person he was assaulting was an officer.
B. Similarity
The main similarity between CF0660-16 and the matter at hand is that both involve
assaults against police officers. In CF0660-16, Cummings was described as aggressive and as
standing in a fighting stance while yelling profanities at the arresting officers, until finally
spitting in an officer's face once he reached the Agat precinct. See People v. Cummings,
CF0660-16 (Magistrate's Compl., Decl., Nov. 12, 2016). In this case, Cummings is alleged to
have stood in a similarly aggressive stance and forcing his hands apart and turning his body
while being arrested. Magistrate's Compl. Decl. Once he arrived at the precinct restrained, he
allegedly attempted to headbutt Officer Osborn's face and kicked wildly at police. Id.
Considering Cummings is charged with assaulting police officers in both cases and allegedly
adopted similar aggressive stances, the Court finds the evidence in CF0660-16 to be sufficiently
similar to the conduct in this case.
C. Sufficiency
ORIGINAL CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page 5 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
The People need only show that a jury could reasonably conclude that the prior act
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ZOI9 JAN I 0 PM f: 3&. CLERK Of CDURT Bv:··' @ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OJ? GUAM ---·---· - PEOPLE OF GUAM, Superior Court Case No. CF0394-17
Plaintiff,
vs. DECISION AND ORDER re JOSEPH ROBERT CUMMINGS, PEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS Defendant.
In the upcoming trial of Defendant Joseph Robert Cummings for Assault of a Peace
Officer and other charges, the People seek to admit evidence of Cummings's prior conviction for
Assault. Having considered the parties' arguments, Guam Rule of Evidence 404(b), and
applicable laws, the Court finds that such evidence is proper and admissible and therefore
GRANTS the People's Motion to Admit Evidence of Prior Bad Acts.
I. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND
. Cummings faces charges of Assaulting a Peace Officer, Assault, and Resisting Arrest.
According to the People, on or about July 8, 2017, after Cummings allegedly committed an
assault, police arrived and notified Cummings that he was being placed under arrest. See Mot. at
2 (July 19, 2018). Once confronted, Cummings resisted arrest "by forcing his hands apart and
turning his body," "kicked wildly at police ... [and] attempted to headbutt Officer L.J. Osborn's
face." !d. CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page2 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
Almost two months before this altercation, on May 12, 2017, Cummings pled guilty to
Assault (as a Misdemeanor), as a lesser included offense of Assault on a Peace Officer (as a 3rd
Degree Felony). See People v. Cummings, CF0660-16 (Plea Agreement, May 15, 2017).
According to the People, in CF0660-16, "Defendant also cursed at officers; [took] the same
aggressive stance while clenching his fists, and while in custody had spit in an officer's face."
Mot. at 2. The assault itself occurred on or about November 12, 2016. See People v. Cummings,
CF0660-16 (Magistrate's Compl., Decl., July 10, 2017).
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
The People seek to admit evidence of the circumstances underlying the assault charged in
CF0660-16 to show Cummings's intent and absence of mistake in this case. Guam Rule of
Evidence 404(b) governs the admission of prior crimes and bad acts and states:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
An analysis ofRule 404(b) evidence proceeds under a four-part test by which the People must
establish "that the evidence (1) proves a material element of the crime currently charged; (2) is
similar to the charged conduct; (3) is based on sufficient evidence; and (4) is not too remote in
time." People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ~~ 12, 47 (quoting People v. Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~
8). Lastly, if the People satisfy their burden on all four factors, then the trial court determine
"whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice." 2015 Guam 2 ~ 47 (quoting Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~ 8); see also GRE 403.
A. Material Element of Crime Charged: Intent or Absence of Mistake
ORIGINAL CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page3 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
The People may prove intent or absence of mistake by introducing evidence of a prior
crime or bad act. See Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~ 12. In Palisoc, the prosecution alleged that the
defendant committed theft, which requires proof of intentional conduct. !d. ~ 13. The Court
ruled that the evidence that Palisoc committed a prior auto theft helped to show that he
committed the instant thefts with the requisite intent. Id. Key to this analysis was the fact that
Palisoc committed the prior act and instant act with the same intent. Id.
The People contend that Cummings' prior bad act of assaulting an officer tends to prove
his intent to assault a peace officer in this case. The mens rea for both assaults is recklessness.
Cummings' plea agreement in CF 0660-16 concedes that "he did recklessly cause or attempt to
cause bodily injury to another." People v. Cummings, CF0660-16 (Plea Agreement).
Recklessness, a material element of assault on a peace officer, is defined as follows:
A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to attendant circumstances or the result of his conduct when he acts in awareness of a substantial risk that the circumstances exist or that his conduct will cause the result and his disregard is unjustifiable and constitutes a gross deviation from the.standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
9 GCA § 4.30(a). The mens rea of recklessness implicates that the person must consciously
disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk and that the person measures this risk by
circumstances of which he is aware. Allowing the People to present evidence that Cummings
knew his conduct would create a risk that he subsequently disregarded because he has previous
experience with a police officer under similar circumstances does tend to show that he acted
recklessly in this case.
Alternatively, the People offer that the proposed evidence demonstrates an absence of
mistake, i.e., that Cummings "knew or should have known" that the police were performing their
ORIGINAL CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page4 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
duties. Reply at 4. If the People can demonstrate that Cummings had this knowledge, then his
potential claim of self-defense would be meritless. Under 9 GCA § 7.86, the use offorce in
self-defense is not justifiable "[t]o resist an arrest which the defendant knows is being made by a
· peace officer in the performance of his duties." Cummings' prior charge of assault involved a
police officer and reflects that he has experience with being arrested and knows what to expect
from officers performing their official duties. As such, the Court finds that Cummings's prior
charge could show that he knew the person he was assaulting was an officer.
B. Similarity
The main similarity between CF0660-16 and the matter at hand is that both involve
assaults against police officers. In CF0660-16, Cummings was described as aggressive and as
standing in a fighting stance while yelling profanities at the arresting officers, until finally
spitting in an officer's face once he reached the Agat precinct. See People v. Cummings,
CF0660-16 (Magistrate's Compl., Decl., Nov. 12, 2016). In this case, Cummings is alleged to
have stood in a similarly aggressive stance and forcing his hands apart and turning his body
while being arrested. Magistrate's Compl. Decl. Once he arrived at the precinct restrained, he
allegedly attempted to headbutt Officer Osborn's face and kicked wildly at police. Id.
Considering Cummings is charged with assaulting police officers in both cases and allegedly
adopted similar aggressive stances, the Court finds the evidence in CF0660-16 to be sufficiently
similar to the conduct in this case.
C. Sufficiency
ORIGINAL CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page 5 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
The People need only show that a jury could reasonably conclude that the prior act
occurred and that the defendant committed the act. Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~ 25. The Judgment in
CF0660-16 provides sufficient evidence that Cummings committed a prior bad act.
D. Proximity
To establish proximity, the Court must look at the time gap between the prior crime and
the present act. !d. ~ 4. In this analysis, courts have "routinely declined to adopt a rigid rule that
would act to freeze dates on a timeline for purposes of admissibility." Id. ~ 27 (referring to U.S.
v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1990)). Moreover, the analysis must be flexible. U.S. v.
Beasley, 809 F.2d 1273, 1277 (7th Cir. 1987) (finding that "[q]uestions about 'how long is too
long' do not have uniform answers.").
Less than a year separates the two events. The assault in CF0660-17 occurred in
November 2016, and the assault in this case allegedly occurred in July 2017. The Court finds
that this proximity in time is not too remote. See U.S. v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir. 1994)
(holding that two years is not too remote in time).
E. GRE 403 Balancing
Concluding that evidence of the prior assault falls within the scope of GRE 404(b)
evidence, the Court must balance the probative value of the prior bad act against its prejudicial
effect. Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~ 28. "Under [GRE] 403, even relevant evidence may be excluded
if 'its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.'" Jd.
(quoting GRE 403). Generally, "most evidence presented by the People in a criminal case is
prejudicial to a defendant," but what matters is the danger of unfair prejudice. People v.
Quintanilla, 2001 Guam 12 ~ 17. "Evidence is only unfairly prejudicial to the extent that it will
ORIGINAL CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page 6 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
cause the jury to decide the case on improper grounds." US. v. Khan, 771 F.3d 367, 377 (7th
Cir. 2014). Improper grounds include finding a defendant to have a propensity towards acting a
certain way or attempting to punish a defendant for past actions. See GRE 404(b).
The Supreme Court of Guam has held Rule 404(b) evidence admissible in cases where
the past conduct was nearly identical to the conduct charged, as well as where it was clearly
similar to the conduct charged. See Quintanilla, 2001 Guam 12 ~ 18-19. "While the 404(b)
evidence [in these cases] was obviously prejudicial, it was not unfairly so, in light of the trial
court's giving the jury the limiting instruction for the use of such evidence." People v. Evaristo,
1999 Guam 22 ~ 17. Here, the Court finds that the similarity between Cummings' prior act and
his current charges are probative in demonstrating Cummings' intent in this case, outweighing
any .inevitable prejudice. Additionally, the prior assault helps demonstrate that Cummings knew
he was being arrested by a police officer, preventing his use of self-defense as a defense.
Keeping in mind the possible prejudice Cummings may face with the introduction of his prior act
to the jury, the Court shall issue a limiting instruction both when the evidence is first offered to
the jury, and during closing jury instructions in order to emphasize that Cummings' prior bad act
should not be interpreted as demonstrative of a character trait or as a propensity towards assault.
III. CONCLUSION
Since the admission of Cummings' prior assault in CF00660-16 has high probative value
in this matter, which outweighs any prejudicial effect, the People's Motion to Admit Evidence of
Prior Bad Acts is GRANTED.
ORIGINAL CF394-17 DECISION AND ORDER REPEOPLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT Page 7 EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS
SO ORDERED this lOth day of January 2019.
l acknowledge ti1at a·eopy of tho original hereto was placed in the court box ofi.I""IC,C . - AG'i t'V0