People v. Degracia

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

C~

3 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO.

PEOPLE OF GUAM 4 ~ S~--~~~~ 5 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER )

6 ) (Defendant Badobinft S. Taisacan's Motion FREDDY VILLAGOMEZ DEGRACIA, ) to Dismiss Indictment and Motion for Bill 7 ) of Particulars)

OLYMPIA SABLAN TAISACAN, )

8 )

BADOBINO SABLAN TAISACAN, )

9 )

)

10 JONATHAN SABLAN TAISACAN, )

)

11 Defendants. )

--------------~~====~--~ 12 INTRODUCTION

13

14 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on January 13, 2014 on

15 Badobino Sablan Taisacan's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Motion for Bill 16 of Particulars. Defendant was indicted along with Co-Defendants Freddy Villagomez Degracia, 17 Olympia Sablan Taisacan, and Jonathan Sablan Taisacan. Defendant was represented by 18

19 Attorney Anthony R. Camacho. Co-Defendants did not join in on the motion. The People of

20 Guam ("the People") were represented by Assistant Attorney General James L.G. Stake.

21 Following the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of the written 22 arguments and legal authorities presented by both parties, the Court issues this Decision and 23 Order DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Motion for Bill of Particulars.

24

25 BACKGROUND

26 The Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury returned a true bill in the instant case. The 27 indictment charges out the following: (1) Burglary (as a 2nd Degree Felony) (3 counts); (2)

28 Theft of Property (as a 2nd Degree Felony); (3) Theft by Receiving Stolen Property (as a 2nd

People v. F. Degracia, 0. Taisacan, B. Taisacan & 1. Taisacan (CF436-12) Page I of6 Decision and Order- Def. 's Mot. to Dismiss Indictment & Motion for Bill of Particulars

ORIGINAL

Degree Felony); (4) Theft of Property (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (2 counts); (5) Theft by 1

2 Receiving Stolen Property (as a 3rd Degree Felony); and (6) Jurisdiction Over an Adult (as a

3 Misdemeanor) (5 counts). The alleged crime took place on or about June 27, 2012, involving 4 items stolen from Inarajan Middle School. Defendant is only indicted on the third charge, Theft 5 by Receiving Stolen Property (as a 2nd Degree Felony).

6 On November 14, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Motion for 7

8 Bill of Particulars. The People filed a "response" on December 27, 2013, under seal.

9 Accordingly, the Court heard this matter on January 13,2014. 10 DISCUSSION

11 Motion to Dismiss Indictment 12

Defendant moves the Court to Dismiss the Indictment on the basis that the People failed 13

14 to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury pursuant to 8 GCA § 50.46. See Def.'s Mot.

15 to Dismiss at 2 (Nov. 14, 2013). Defendant specifically argues that "[the People} failed to 16 present exculpatory statements given by male minor F.D., Jr. (DOB: 8/6/94)." Id. at 3. "F.D., 17 Jr.'s exculpatory statement was that he saw an unidentified light skinned male with black hair 18

and narrow face with the T.V. set missing from Inarajan Middle School." Id. Defendant 19

20 contends that he "was prejudiced by the omission because the [G]rand [J]ury was denied the 21 opportunity to investigate whether (he] had any involvement at all in the alleged theft of the 22 T.V. from Inarajan Middle School." Id. Defendant further contends that "these statement[s] are 23 direct and substantial evidence that someone other than Taisacan received the T.V.'s that were 24

25 allegedly stolen from Inarajan Middle School." Id.

26 The People oppose Defendant's motion for dismissal. They argue that the statement 27 made by F.D., Jr. cannot be considered substantial evidence. The People contend that a review 28

People v. F. Degraeia, 0. Taisacan, B. Taisacan & J. Taisacan (CF436-J2) Page 2 of6 Decision and Order- Def. 's Mot. to Dismiss Indictment & Motion for Bill of Particulars of the discovery demonstrates that "F.D., Jr.'s statement is different from what Defendant 1

2 makes it out to be. F.D., Jr. states in an interview to Officer Aflague, "Ma'am I did not take any

3 part of the missing TV. And I don't know of anyone that is involved." F.D., Jr. continued, 4 "Now I remember, that I saw a light skinned male adult about 5'7 tall with black hair, and a 5 narrow face walking by my residence the night the TV was missing." The Court having 6

reviewed this statement agrees with the People that F.D., Jr. did not say a man with the T.V.

7

8 Rather, he saw a man as described above walking by the "evening the TV was missing."

9 The People have a duty to disclose exculpating evidence in their possession. Guam law 10 provides:

11 The grand jury shall receive only evidence presented to it by the prosecuting 12 attorney but the prosecuting attorney shall submit any evidence in his possession 13 which would tend to negate guilt and the grand jury shall weigh all the evidence submitted.

14 8 GCA § 50.46 (2005) (emphasis added).

15

16 In the instant case, the Court does not find the statement made by F.D., Jr. as exculpating

17 evidence that would tend to negate guilt against the Defendant. The above statute does not 18 impose on the prosecutor a duty to explain any evidence beneficial to the defense in the context 19 the statement was offered. See People v. Grajo, No. 86-00002 (D. Guam App. Div. 1986).

20 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment.

21

22 Motion for Bill of Particulars

23 Defendant also moves for a Bill of Particulars citing 8 GCA §55.30. Defendant argues 24 that a Bill of Particulars is necessary to clarify the pleading and contain "such particulars as may 25 be necessary for the preparation of [his] defense." See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 3 (Nov. 14, 26

2013). Defendant further argues that only the third charge of the indictment applies to him.

27

28 "This charge does not disclose the monetary an1ount or the stolen items that were allegedly

People v. F. Degracia, 0. Taisacan, B. Taisacan & J. Taisacan (CF436-12) Page 3 of6 Decision and Order Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Indictment & Motion for Bill ofParticulars received by [the Defendant]." Id. "The indictment fails to give [him] notice of exactly what 1

2 stolen items he allegedly received or what the monetary value of these items were." Id.

3 "It is a cardinal principal of our criminal law that an indictment is sufficient which 4 apprises a defendant of the crime with which he is charged so as to enable him to prepare his 5 defense and to plead judgment of acquittal or conviction as a plea to a subsequent prosecution 6 for the same offense." People v. Jones, 2006 Guam 13 ~ 12 (citing Portnoy v. United States, 316 7

8 F .2d 486, 488 (1st Cir. 1963 ). "A motion for a bill of particulars is appropriate where a

9 defendant requires clarification in order to prepare a defense." United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 10 1044, 1054 (9th Cir. 1983). "It is designed to apprise the defendant of the specific charges being 11 presented to minimize the danger or surprise at trial, to aid in preparation and to protect against 12

13 double jeopardy." !d. "In determining if a bill of particulars should be ordered in a specific

14 case, a court should consider whether the defendant has been advised adequately of the charges 15 through the indictment and all other disclosures made by the government. !d. (citing United 16 States v. Giese, 597 F .2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979)).

17 Guam law provides for Bill of Particulars as follows:

18

19 Whether or not an indictment or information complies with § 55.1 0, if it fails to specify the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to 20 prepare his defense, the court may, on motion of the defendant, require the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a clarification of the pleading 21 containing such particulars as may be necessary for the preparation of the 22 defense.

23 8 GCA § 55.30 (2005) (emphasis added). 24 The Court recognizes that it has discretionary authority to require the People to furnish 25 such a clarification, notwithstanding an indictment's conformance with 8 GCA § §55.1 0. "The 26 law on statutory construction is well-settled. [I]f a statute is unan1biguous, then judicial inquiry 27

28 is complete." People v. Quichocho, 1997 Guam 13 ~ 5 (citing Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S.

People v. F. Degraeia, 0. Taisaean, B. Taisaean & J. Taisaean (CF436-12) Page 4 of6 Decision and Order Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Indictment & Motion for Bill of Particulars 424 (1981 ). The "Bill of Particulars" statute is unambiguous. Therefore, the Court will review 1

2 the charges as drafted in the indictment to determine whether the exercise of its discretionary

3 authority is appropriate. 4 Defendant is charged with Theft by Receiving Stolen Property enumerated as charge 3 5 in the Indictment. The charge reads as follows:

6

THIRD CHARGE

7

8 On or about June 27, 2012, in Guam, FREDDY VILLAGOMEZ DEGRACIA, OLYMPIA SABLAN TAISACAN, and BADOBINO SABLAN TAISACAN 9 did commit the offense of Theft by Receiving Stolen Property, in that they did 10 intentionally receive, retain or dispose of the movable property of Inarajan Middle School, knowing that it had been stolen or believing that it had probably been 11 stolen, in violation of9 GCA §§ 43.50(a), 43.20(a) and 4.60. 12 Indictment (Jul. 27, 2012).

13 The statutory language of the third charge, as codified in Guam law reads as follows:

14 (a) A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains or disposes of 15 moveable property of another knowing that it has been stolen or believing that 16 it has probably been stolen. It is a defense to a charge of violating this Section that the defendant received, retained or disposed of the property with intent to 17 restore it to the owner. 18 9 GCA § 43.50(a)(2005).

19 The Indictment also cites to 9 GCA § 43.20(a) relative to the third charge. That provision reads:

20 (a) Theft constitutes a felony of the second degree if the amount involved exceeds 21 One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1 ,500) or if the property stolen is a bus, 22 truck, automobile, aircraft, motorcycle, or motor boat, or in the case of theft by receiving stolen property, if the defendant is in the business of buying and selling 23 stolen property. In the case of theft as a felony of the second degree, the court shall impose a sentence of imprisonment of a minimum term of five (5) years and 24 may impose a maximum term ofup to ten (10) years; the minimum term imposed 25 shall not be suspended nor may probation be imposed in lieu of the minimum term nor shall parole or work release be granted before completion of the 26 minimum term. The sentence shall include a special parole term of not less than 27 three (3) years in addition to such term of imprisonment provided, however, that in the case of an offender not previously convicted of a felony or of an offense 28 constituting theft, the court may sentence the offender to not more than five (5)

People v. F. Degracia, 0. Taisacan, B. Taisacan & J. Taisacan (CF436-12) Page 5 of6 Decision and Order Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Indictment & Motion for Bill ofParticulars years imprisonment and the provisions of this subsection prohibiting probation, 1 suspension, parole, or work release shall not be applicable to such offender.

2 9 GCA § 43.20(a)(2005).

3

Generally, an indictment which tracks the words of the statute charging the offense is 4

5 sufficient as long as the words unambiguously set forth all the elements of the offense. See

6 People v. Jones, 2006 Guam 13. With the case at bar, the Court finds that the indictment tracks 7 the language of the statute and with reference to § 9GCA §43.20(a), the monetary value is 8 given. Therefore, Defendant is provided with adequate information to prepare his defense.

9

10 Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars is DENIED.

11 CONCLUSION

12 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court 13 DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Motion for Bill of Particulars.

14 ..;it A continued Pre-Trial Conference is scheduled for fV/11&1-f /0 ,2014 at Cf e:;, M.

15

16 SO ORDERED this _f.!:_day ofFEBRUARY, 2014.

17

18

19 pi /14{(__

20 / HONORAB~SUKOLA

Judge, Superior Court of Guam 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

People v. F. Degraeia, 0. Taisaean, B. Taisaean & J. Taisaean (CF436-12) Page 6 of6 Decision and Order Def. 's Mot. to Dismiss Indictment & Motion for Bill of Particulars