People v. Galendez

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: October 17, 2013
• Docket: CF0104-13
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0104-13 3 ) 4 ) r'\t :- < vs. ) \JL~~~r

5 ) DECISION AND ORDER ) (Motion to Dismiss Indiqtinent) 6 ALLAN ELAGO GALENDEZ, ) ) Defendant. ) 8

10 INTRODUCTION

II This matter comes before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on Defendant's 12 Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss 13 Indictment. Defendant Allan Elago Galendez ("Defendant") is represented by Assistant 14

Public Defender Maria G. Fitzpatrick. The People of Guam ("The People") are represented 15

16 by Assistant Atterney General Teri C. Tenorio. After reviewing the pleadings, the Court now

17 issues the following Decision and Order DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 18

19 BACKGROUND 20 On February 27, 2013, Defendant was indicted on charges of Advanced Stalking (As 21 a Second Degree Felony), Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony), Terrorizing (As a Third 22 Degree Felony), Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor), Assault (As a Misdemeanor), and 23

24 Violation of Court Order (As a Misdemeanor) (3 Counts).

25 On July 5, 2013, Defendant filed Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities 26 in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment ("Motion to Dismiss"). The People filed People's 27 Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment ("Opposition") on 28

Page I of 4

People v. Galendez Decision & Order (Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0104-13 August 12, 2013. Defendant filed Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 2 Motion to Dismiss Indictment ("Reply") on August 20, 2013. 3

4 DISCUSSION 5 Title 8 GCA 50.42 states that "(t]he grand jury shall receive only competent evidence 6 but the fact that evidence which is incompetent was received by the grand jury does not render

8 the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support the indictment was

9 received by the grand jury." 8 GCA § 50.42 (2013). The Compiler's Note under Section 10 50.42 states that "Section 50.42 ... lowers the standard of evidence required to be presented II before the grand jury, requiring that evidence only be competent, rather than requiring that 12 evidence be admissible over objection at a triaL"' 8 GCA § 50.42. "[T]he function of the 13

14 grand jury is only to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with a

15 crime. . . . If it is evidence that a reasonable person would rely upon in conducting his or her 16 daily affairs, then it is competent within the meaning of the statute, regardless of whether it 17 would be admissible at trial under the rules of evidence." People v. Quidachay, 815 F.2d 18 1311, 1313 (9th Cir.1987). 19

20 Additionally, "[t]he Compiler's Note makes it clear that hearsay evidence is not

21 necessarily incompetent for the limited purpose of being presented to the Grand Jury." 22 People v. Quidachay, 1986 WL 68912 at * 2 (D.Guam.App.Div.1986). Similarly, "The 23 [United States] Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional prohibition against 24 presenting hearsay to a grand jury or against hearsay forming the basis for an indictment." 25

26 Quidachay, 815 F.2d at 1312 (citing Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956)).

27 Defendant notes that as The People's only witness before the Grand Jury, Attorney 28 General Investigator Salas ("Investigator Salas") testified based on a police report. Motion to

Page 2 of4

People v. Galendez Decision & Order (Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CFO 104-13 Dismiss at 1. Defendant contends that this evidence was not competent evidence, because 2 Investigator Salas did not have personal knowledge of the preparation of the police report. Jd 3 The People, in Opposition, argue that Defendant's argument fails, because he ignores well- 4 settled law that permits the use of hearsay during grand jury proceedings. Opposition at 3. 5

6 Defendant, in his Reply, contends this is not an issue of whether the evidence presented to the

7 Grand Jury was to a jury. Reply at 8 1. Defendant argues the present case is entitled to dismissal not because Investigator Salas's 9 testimony was hearsay. Jd at 2. Defendant, however, contends the evidence is incompetent 10

II and dismissal is warranted, because Investigator Salas did not participate in the investigation

12 and did not interview the witnesses himself. !d. at 2. 13 The Court notes that regardless of how Defendant frames his argument, it appears 14 Defendant is challenging the hearsay nature of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury. 15 "'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or 16

17 hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Guam R. Evid. 80l(c).

18 In the present case, Investigator Salas was the sole witness before the Grand Jury, and had no 19 personal connection with the case. He was simply a conduit for a police report composed of 20 hearsay. 21 The Court holds that Defendant's argument fails, since existing precedent does not 22

23 distinguish between hearsay offered by a grand jury witness like Investigator Salas to the

24 hearsay offered by one who is actually involved in an investigation. See 8 GCA § 50.42; 25 People v. Quidachay, 815 F.2d 1311; Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359. The Court 26 reiterates that an indictment should not be dismissed where an indictment is based only on 27

28 hearsay evidence. Therefore, the Court must deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss based on

the absence of such precedent. Page 3 of4

People v. Galendez Decision & Order (Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0104-13 Finally, the Court reiterates that "competent evidence" is evidence that a reasonable 2 person would rely upon in conducting or her daily affairs, irrespective of whether the 3 evidence would be admissible at trial under the rules of evidence. There is no authority to 4 support the proposition that in order for evidence to be competent, a testifying witness must 5

6 have participated in preparation of the report and must have personal knowledge of the

7 preparation of the report. 8

9 CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Further II proceedings are set for Ovt-. ~~;f Jol3. 12

# 13 SO ORDERED this~ of October 2013. 14

15 ON BLE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO 16 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 17

Page 4 of4

People v. Galendez Decision & Order (Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CFOI04-13