People v. Evaristo

Opinion

r a Q

33 ?° . I=e==@» _

3upi'§§iiuR QQURT 1 DF

2 Z£H9§PR -2 sea 92 ~l6 3 CLERK oF_COURT

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUXM 5

6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0598-18

8 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 9

10 PAUL OPENA EVARISTO,

11 Defendant. 12

INTRODUCTION 13

This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on Defendant Paul Opena 14

E v a r ist o' s ( " D efenda nt " ) M ot ion for C iv il C om pr om ise, filed F ebr u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 . Assistant 15 Public Defender Jocelyn M. Roden represents Defendant, and Assistant Attorney General 16

Brendlynn O. Joseph represents the People of Guam ("the Government"). Having reviewed the 17

pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision 18

and Order. 19

BACKGROUND 20

On December 8, 2018, Defendant was charged with Family Violence (As a 21

M isdem ea nor ) a nd A ssa u lt ( A s a M isdem ea nor ) . ( M a g ist r a t e' s C on pl. , D ec. 8 , 2 0 1 8 ) . These 22

charges stem from allegations that Defendant came home drunk and when asked to go to bed, 23

became ag g r essiv e and hit his mot her on her face. ( D ecl. of Br ycen Br ea z ea le, M a g ist r a t e' s 24

C om a l . , D ec. 8 , 2 0 1 8 ) . When Gu a m P olice Depa r t ment Officer s a r r iv ed on t he scene, t hey 25

observed Defendant being held down by his brother. Id. 26

On February 22, 2018, Defendant filed the instant Motion, moving the Court to dismiss 27

the above captioned matter for civil compromise pursuant to 8 G.C.A. § 80.90. On M ar ch 8 , 28

People v. Evaristo Case No. CM0598-18 Decision and Order

Page 1 of 4 1 2018, the Government filed its Opposition. No Reply was filed. On March 25, 2019, the

2 Motion for Civil Compromise was taken under advisement pursuant to RUle 7.1 of the Local

3 Rules of the Superior Court of Guam.

4 DISCUSSION

5 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss this matter because he and the alleged victim

6 have reached a civil compromise under 8. G.C.A. § 80.90. See generally, M o t . C i v i l

7 Compromise, Feb. 22, 2019. A Declaration .of Anita L. Santos, the alleged victim, filed in

8 support of the Motion, states that Ms. Santos understands that she may have a remedy by civil

9 action as a result of Defendant's actions and acknowledges that she has "received satisfaction

10 for the injury" and does "not object to dismissal of this case by way of the Civil Compromise

11 statute." (Decl. of Anita L. Toves, Feb. 22, 2019). .

12 The Government opposes dismissal under the civil compromise statute because "it is

13 difficult to determine whether or not the Victim actually received satisfaction for the injury" and

14 that "crimes of family violence are not generally the type of which adequate satisfaction can be

15 readily shown." (Opp'n at 2, Mar. 8, 2019).

16 Under Guam law:

17 (a) When the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is not a felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the 18 offense has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as 19 provided by this Section.

20 (b) If the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which the criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges 21 that he has received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the 22 costs incurred, order the criminal action dismissed.

23 (c) A dismissal under this Section is a bar to another prosecution for the same

24 offense.

25 8 G.C.A. § 80.90. Section 80.90 does not explicitly state that the statute is inapplicable to

26 crimes of family violence, however, civil compromise is typically limited to cases involving

27 monetary restitution for property damages. California law, which served as the basis for

28 Guam's civil compromise statute, excludes family violence offenses from its civil compromise

Page 2 of 4 1 statute. See 8 G.C.A. § 80.90, Note, Cal. Pen. Code §§ 1377, 1378. California Penal Code

2 Section 1377 provides:

3 When the person injured by an act constituting a misdemeanor has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised, as provided in section 1378, except 4 when it is committed as follows: 5 (a) By or upon an officer of justice, while in the execution of the duties of his or her office. . 6 (b) Riotously. 7 (c) with an intent to commit a felony.

8 (d) In violation of any court order as described in Section 273.6 or 273.65. (e) By or upon any f amily or household Member, or upon any person 9 when the violation involves any person described in Section 621] of 10 the Family Code or subdivision (b) of Section 13700 of this code. (f) Upon an elder, in violation of Section 368 of this code or Section 11 15656 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 12 (g) Upon a child, as described in Section 647.6 or ll16S.6.

13 Cal. Pen. Code § 1377 (emphasis added).

14 The Court recognizes that unlike California, Guam did not enact the specific prohibition

15 of family violence cases from the civil compromise statute. However, the rational of

16 prohibition exists not only because it is difficult to determine whether or not an alleged victim

17 has actually received satisfaction for the injury, but because the prosecution of family violence

18 cases is of interest to the public. Family violence cases frequently involve victims who, because

19 of their status or relationship to the defendant, may be unduly influenced to civil compromise.

20 Thus, civil compromise of family violence matters does not present "circumstances such that

21 through private settlement the public is fully vindicated." People v. Moulton, 182 Cal. Rptr.

22 761, 768 0982). The Court also acknowledges that certain findings were made by Dr. Juan

23 Rapadas regarding the circumstances of the commission of the alleged offenses, but finds that

24 dismissal through civil compromise is not the proper venue to address such findings. Therefore,

25 the Court will not allow the matter to be dismissed under the civil compromise statute.

26 // ,

27 //

28 //

Page 3 of 4 1 CONCLUSION

2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion for Civil

3 Compromise. Further Proceedings are set for April 30, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED this We *V 51 day of_ aleeH, 2019. 1

7 H6NOR ABL E V ER NON p. PER EZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 8

1 3

14 SERVICE VIA COURT Box

15 I acknowledge that a copy 01 the original hereto was placed in the court box of: _ 16 Ah QL ?i>9c, 17 625392 2019 m m Mme :

18 lrgqmmtrvfnfy De Berk, Superior Court 01 Go

Page 4 o ff