People v. Damian

Opinion

t� .� �� r�

COURT

S U P E R LR)

OF GUAM

01q! i:".- -8 PH T 16 ' ,!

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM CL' Cji C!fr^CURI'

PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIM INAL CASI§ NO. CF0107-14

v. ) DECISION & ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

KURT ANDERSON DAMIAN, ) JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL (9 GCA § 100.10)

Defendant . )

8I

9 1.

101 INTRODUCTION

111 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon at Kurt Anderson Damian's 121

(`Defendant") Jury Trial, which began on July 28, 2014. Defendant was present and 13 represented by Assistant Alternate Public Defender Stephen P. Hattori and Assistant Attorney 14

15 General Gerald L. Henderson represented the People of Guam ("the People"). At close of the

6 People's case on July 29, 2014, Defendant made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal

("Motion") on all of the charges brought against him.

The Court GRANTED Defendant' s Motion as to the First Charge of Aggravated

Assault (As a 3rd Degree Felony) and the Second Charge of Second Degree Robbery ( As a 2nd

Degree Felony).

The Court DENIED Defendant's Motion as to the Third Charge of Theft by Receiving

Stolen Property (As a 2nd Degree Felony), the Fourth Charge of Felony Vehicle Identification

(As a 3rd Degree Felony), the Fifth Charge of Eluding a Police Officer (As a Misdemeanor),

26 and the Sixth Charge of Assault (As a Misdemeanor). The Court now issues the following 27 written Decision and Order memorializing and setting forth the reasons for its ruling.

28 Page 1 of s

D.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged, in a Superceding Indictment filed April 11, 2014, with

Aggravated Assault (As a 3rd Degree Felony), Second Degree Robbery (As a 2nd Degree

Felony), Theft by Receiving Stolen Property (As a 2nd Degree Felony), Felony Vehicle

Identification (As a 3rd Degree Felony), Eluding a Police Officer (As a Misdemeanor), and 7

s Assault (As a Misdemeanor). Jury Trial began on July 28, 2014. The witnesses called by the 9 People to present their case in chief included alleged victim Janessa Darlene Tydingco, 10 eyewitness Ryan James Quichocho, and the investigating and arresting Guam Police Officers.

it At the close of the People's case on July 29, 2014, Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal 12

13 under 8 GCA § 100.10 on all of the charges, arguing that the People did not present enough

14 evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant

15 committed any of the charged offenses.

16 After hearing oral arguments from both parties, the Court ruled from the bench and 17 denied Defendant's Motion on the charges of Felony Vehicle Identification, Eluding a Police 18

19 Officer, and Assault, finding ample evidence was presented to support these charges. The Court

20 granted Defendant's Motion on the charge of Aggravated Assault, finding no evidence of an 21 attempt by Defendant to cause serious bodily injury was presented The Court reserved ruling 22 on the Charges of Second Degree Robbery and Theft by Receiving Stolen Property in order to 23

further examine the evidence introduced at trial.

24 25 Upon resuming trial on July 31, 2014, the Court denied Defendant' s M otion on the

26 charge of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property, finding evidence of the essential elements of the 27 charge was presented, and granted Defendant' s Motion on the charge of Second Degree 28

Page 20f 8

Robbery, finding no evidence present to support the victim being in fear of serious bodily

injury. Following the Court's ruling on Defendant' s M otion, Defendant rested and the matter

was submitted to the jury.

M.

APPLICABLE LAW

A motion for judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged should be granted if

"after the evidence on either side is closed[,] the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction

of such offense or offenses." 9 GCA § 100.10 (2005) . "The trial court determines whether a 10 motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted by applying the same test used when the 11 sufficiency of the evidence is challenged." People it. Chin Song, 2012 Guam 21 Y 27 (citing 12

People it. Tennesen, 2009 Guam 3 1 14). Under this test, the Court reviews "the evidence

presented at trial in the light most favorable to the People [to] determine whether any rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

/d. 1 2 6 (citing Tennesen 1 1 4 ) .

Further, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court is only "concerned with

the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight." Chin Song 1 29 (citing State it.

Weston, 625 S.E. 2d 641, 648 (S.C. 2006)). This standard also applies "when the People rely

exclusively on circumstantial evidence." Ii ( c it ing State it. Elmore, 628 S.E. 2d 271, 273 (S. C.

Ct. App. 2006)).

27

28 P ag e 3 o f8

I t

ANALYSIS

A. Aam'avated Assault ( As a 3rd Degree Felony)

Defendant was indicted under 9 GCA § 19.20( a)(2) for attempting to cause "serious

bodily injury to [Janessa Darlene Tydingco]." In this context, "serio us bodily injury" includes

bodily injury that creates " serious permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of death or serious

permanent disfigurement, severe or intense physical pain, or protracted loss or impairment o

consciousness or of the function of any bodily member or organ." 9 GCA § 16.10(c).

10 Ms. Tydingco testified at trial that Defendant placed his hands on her neck, but that it w 11

only for a moment, and it was done while trying to restrain Ms. Tydingco during an altercation

Minute Sheet, Jury Trial Day 4 at 3:29:45 PM (July 29, 2014). This account was corroborated

by testimony from Ryan James Quichocho. I d a t 3 :56:01 PM. Even if viewed in a light most

favorable to the People, the momentary placing of Defendant's hands on Ms. Tydingco's neck 16 did not provide enough evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable 17

18 doubt that Defendant attempted to cause " serious bodily injury" to Ms. Tydingco, as defined

19 under the statute. Therefore, the Court GRANTED Defendant's Motion as to the Charge o 20 1 Aggravated Assault.

21

22 B. Second Degree Robbery (As a 2nd Degree Felony)

23 Defendant was indicted under 9 GCA § 40.20(aX2) for " intentionally putting [Janess 24 Darlene Tydingco] in fear of immediate serious bodily injury" while in the course of committing 25 the theft of a cell phone. A trier of fact could rationally find "fear of serious bodily injury" when 26 presented with evidence of a verbal threat made by the defendant, the use of a weapon, or di 27

28 Page 4 of 8 victim testifying to being afraid of death or serious bodily injury. See People v. Cruz, 199

Guam 18 120 (denying defendant's motion where witness testified he was scared because

defendant had a knife and stated he would use it) and Commonwealth v. Jannett, 58 A.3d 818,

822 (2012) (finding sufficient evidence to support a conviction where defendant stated he had

gun and witnesses testified that they were afraid).

intentionally At trial,

putthere

Ms.was

Tydingco in "fear

no evidence presented for rational of immediate serious

trier

bodily

of fact

injury."

to find that

There

Defendant

was n

8 9 testimony from any witness indicating that Defendant made threats to Ms. Tydingco or that 101 Defendant was wielding a weapon. Further, Ms. Tydingco did not testify to being in fear o 11 death, serious bodily injury, or any bodily injury during her altercation with Defendant 12

13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTED Defendant's Motion as to the Charge of Second Degree

14 Robbery. 15

T

C.h e f t b y Receiving Stolen Property (As a 2nd Degree Felony)

16 Defendant was indicted under 9 GCA § 43.50(a) for intentionally receiving, retaining o 17 disposing of the motor vehicle of Chelsea R.C. Tedtaotao, knowing that it had been stolen o 18

19 believing that it had probably been stolen.

20 Evidence of every essential element of Theft by Receiving Stolen property was presen 21 at trial. Testimony from Guam Police Officers indicated that on multiple occasions Defend an 22 was in possession of a vehicle that was reported stolen by Ms. Tedtaotao, from which the jury 23 could reasonably infer that Defendant intentionally received and retained the vehicle. Minis 24

25 Sheet, Jury Trial Day 3 at 11:12:51 AM and 11:26:01 AM (July 28, 2014).

26 Additionally, evidence was presented at trial indicating that there was a dashboard cove 27 personalized for Ms. Tedtaotao in the vehicle (Minute Sheet, Jury Trial Day 3 at 10:58:07 28 Pages ofs

(July 28, 2014)), that the license plates on the vehicle were changed multiple times while in die

defendant's possession (id at 11:21:04 AM and 11:46:37 AM), and that Defendant, while

possession of the vehicle, had lied multiple times when confronted by Guam Police Officers (id

at 11:19:40 AM, 11:27:12 AM). Based on this evidence, a rational trier of fact could infer tha

Defendant knew that the vehicle had been stolen or at least believed that it had probably been

stolen.

Defendant's continuous possession of the vehicle, his interaction with police officers, and 9 the characteristics of the vehicle provided enough evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that 10 Defendant intentionally received and retained Ms. Tedtaotao's motor vehicle, knowing that i

had been stolen or believing that it had probably been stolen. Therefore, the Court DENTE 12

13 Defendant's Motion as to the Charge of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property.

14 D. Felony Vehicle Identification (As a 3rd Deeree Felony) 15 Defendant was indicted under 16 GCA § 9102(a) for intentionally defacing or altering the 16 distinguishing number or identification mark of a vehicle required or employed for registration

purposes without written authorization from the Department of Revenue and Taxation, or placing

another mark upon a vehicle, except one assigned thereto by the Department.

The Court determined evidence was introduced at trial to find the essential elements o

was driving Felony Vehicle Chelsea

Identification.

Tedtaotao'sTestimony from Guam stolen vehicle on twoPolice separate

Officers

occasions

indicated

withthat

twoDefendant

different

license plates, neither of which was the one assigned to it by the Department of Revenue an

25 Taxation. Minute Sheet, Jury Trial Day 3 at 11:21:04 AM and 11:46:37 AM (July 28, 2014)

26 Based on this evidence, the Court determined that a rational trier of fact could have found tha 27 Defendant intentionally placed the license plates, which were not assigned to the vehicle by th 28

Page 6 ofa

Department of Revenue and Taxation, upon the vehicle. Therefore, the Court DENIED

Defendant's Motion as to the Charge of Felony Vehicle Identification.

E. Eluding a Police Officer (As a Misdemeanor)

being pursued, Defendant

by was

failing

indicted

or refusing

underto16stop

GCA § 3301.1

when signaled

forto

eluding

do so by

Guam

sirens

Police

and Officers,

lights mounted

while

on the Officers' marked police car.

At trial, testimony regarding Guam Police Officers' pursuit of Defendant provided

Officer Santos evidence of all indicated the essential

thatelements

he was pursuing

of Eluding a PoliceinOfficer.

Defendant a markedTestimony police vehicle

from with

Guamboth

Police

the

10

11 lights and sirens activated. Minute Sheet, Jury Trial Day 3 at 11:43:04 AM (July 28, 2014)

12

13 proceeded Officer on foot.

Santos Id. atthat

testified 11:44:50

Defendant

AM.failed

It is clear

to stop,

that,drove

basedaway,

on this

andaccount,

then parked

a rational

the car

trierand

o

14

15 fact could find that Defendant eluded Guam Police Officers while being pursued by failing 16 stop when signaled to do so by sirens and lights on a marked police car. Therefore, the Courl 17 DENIED Defendant's Motion as to the Charge of Eluding a Police Officer.

18

19 F. Assault (As a Misdemeanor)

20 Defendant was indicted under 9 GCA § 19.30(a)(1) for " recklessly caus[ing]...bodil 21 injury to [Janessa Darlene Tydingco]." Bodily injury includes "physical pain, illness 22'11 unconsciousness or any impairment of physical condition." 9 GCA § 16.10(b).

23

Based on the testimony given by Ms. Tydingco at trial, the Court determined there w 24

25 ample evidence for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant commit t e d

26 Assault. In describing her altercation with Defendant, Ms. Tydingco testified that Defendant 27 struck her, pulled her hair, and wrestled her to the ground. Minute Sheet, Jury Trial Day 4 28 Page 7 of8 3:15:58 PM (July 29, 2014). Photos of injuries sustained by Ms. Tydingco during the

altercation were also presented as evidence. Id at 3:30:40 PM. Based on this evidence,

rational trier of fact could have found that Defendant recklessly caused bodily injury to Ms

Tydingco. Accordingly, the Court DEN IED Defendant's Motion for Acquittal as to the Charge

of Assault.

V.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the evidence that was introduced at Defendant's trial and interpreting said 10 evidence in a light most favorable to the People and drawing every reasonable inference from 11 the evidence in favor of the People, a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a 12

13 reasonable doubt, the essential elements of. 1) Theft by Receiving Stolen Property; 2) Felony

14 Vehicle Identification; 3) Eluding a Police Officer; 4) Assault. Consequently, Defendant's 15 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to 8 OCA § 100.10 is properly DENIED as to these 16 charges.

17 With regard to the charges of Aggravated Assault and Second Degree Robbery, there 15

19 was no evidence introduced at trial for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of

20 these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Judgment of 2t Acquittal pursuant to 8 OCA § 100.10 is properly GRANTED as to these charges.

221 17114

23 SO ORDERED this I day of August, 2014. 24

25 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 1 edmvaledtemat a -WY M th odrd Nrem was paced m tlw 26

27 � R - HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON ,� ,a Judge, Superior Court of Guam 28 Oeptyamk (#anCahld P ap s o f 3