People v. Guerrero
Opinion
. ,,.7-
1 ., \: '!"-: * t '. r ' 1
2 - i
T
3
4 - -
5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF509-08 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, )
9 )
)
10 )
VS. ) DECISION AND ORDER 11 ) (Motion to Dismiss Indictment)
)
12 )
JONATHAN ANTHONY LEON )
13 )
GUERRERO, 1 14
15 Defendant. 1 )
16
17 INTRODUCTION 18 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on March 2,2009, for a hearing 19 on Jonathan Anthony Leon Guerrero's ("Defendant7') Motion to Dismiss Indictment. Attorney 20
21 Pablo Aglubat of Public Defender Service Corp. appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Attorney
22 Suzanne K. Horrigan appeared on behalf of the People of Guam ("the People"). Upon review of 23 the evidence, oral and written arguments, and legal authorities presented by both attorneys, the 24 court hereby issues this Decision and Order.
25 BACKGROUND 26
27 On November 7, 2008, the Grand Jury indicted Defendant as follows: (1) on or about
28 October 29, 2008, Defendant, did enter the habitable property of Francis F. Reyes, #546 Cruz
The People of Guam vs. Leon Guerrero, CF509-08 Page 1 of 5
Street, Merizo, Guam, with the intent to commit the crime of theft therein, at the time when the
premises were neither open to the public nor the Defendant licensed or privileged to so enter, in
violation of 9 G.C.A. $5 37.20(aO and 37.20(b); and (2) on or about October 29, 2008,
Defendant, did unlawfully take, obtain and exercise unlawful control over the moveable
property of Francis F. Reyes, that is, a Playstation, with the intent to deprive Francis F. Reyes
thereof, the amount involved exceeding $50.00 but less than $500.00, in violation of 9 G.C.A.
$5 43.20(c) and 43.30(a). Indictment (November 7,2008).
On February 2, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment. Defendant
argued that the People failed to present sufficient evidence to the Grand Jury to support the
charges of Burglary and Theft of Property. Defendant's Memorandum at 1 (February 2, 2009).
Defendant support's his entire argument on 8 G.C.A. 5 50.54. The People failed to file a written
opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment.
On March 3, 2009, a motion hearing was held. Defendant asked the Court to preclude
the People from making oral arguments during the motion hearing. The Court noted the
People's failure to file an opposition, but allowed the People to make an oral opposition. The
Court now addresses Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argued that there was no reasonable cause for the Grand Jury to indict thc
Defendant because there was no evidence presented that Defendant was at the Victim's residencc
- where the alleged burglary and theft occurred. Defendant's Memorandum at 2 (February 2
2009). The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an indictment valid on its facc
is not subject to challenge on the grounds of insufficient evidence. United State v. Williams, 5 0 ~
U.S. 36, 54, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (1992); Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 262
The People of Guam vs. Leon Guenero, CF509-08 Page 2 of 5 108 S.Ct. 2369 (1988); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344-345, 94 S.Ct. 613 (1974)
1
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76S.Ct. 406 (1956); but see
3 Romero, 585 F.2d 391, 399 (9th Cir. 1978) (acknowledging that "a complete absence o 4 evidence might serve to invalidate an indictment"). A grand Jury indictment may be subject t 5 dismissal only in cases of a prosecutor's "flagrant deception" or "overreaching" of the gran 6
jury.
8 Guam law requires that "[tlhe grand jury shall receive only evidence presented to it b
the prosecuting attorney, but the prosecuting attorney shall submit any evidence in his possessio 10 which would tend to negate guilt." 8 G.C.A 5 50.46. The standard for determining whether erro 11 in the grand jury proceedings justifies dismissal of the indictment prior to trial a court mus 12
13 consider whether the defendant has been prejudiced by the error.
14 Muna, 999 F.2d 397, 399 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. 250 at 25, 108 l5 S.Ct. 2369. Prejudice is established "if it is established that the violation substantially influence 16 the grand jury's decision to indict, or if there is grave "doubt" that the decision to indict was fie 17 fiom substantial influence of such violations." Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. at 256, 108 S.C 18
19 at 2374. A Court may dismiss an indictment if the prosecutorial conduct was "flagrant" an
20 caused substantial prejudice to the defendant. United State v. Jacobs, 855 F.2d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 21 1988). However, absent flagrant or prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, dismissal is an abuse o 22 discretion. @. at 65. The Court finds the People's conduct was neither flagrant nor did it caus 23 substantial prejudice to the defendant. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion t 24
25 Dismiss the Indictment.
26 Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence for the Grand Jury to indict hi 27 for the offenses alleged in the magistrate's complaint. The Court disagrees. The grand jury shal 28
The People of Guam vs. Leon Guerrero, CF509-08 find an indictment when fiom the evidence presented there is reasonable cause to believe that an
indictable offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. 8 G.C.A. 5 50.54.
Under 9 G.C.A. 37.20(a), a person is guilty of Burglary if he: (1) enters or surreptitiously
remains in any habitable property or a separately secured or occupied portion thereof; and (2)
with the intent to commit a crime therein.
In this case, the People must present facts that Defendant entered habitable property. 9
G.C.A. 5 37.20(a). Officer Lujan arrived at the scene he met with a witness - Ben Castro
("Castro"). Grand Jurv Proceedings at 2:40 p.m. Castro informed Officer Lujan that he was
jogging past his brother's residence - which was located in the Pigua, Merizo. a.Castro notice a
male individual was doing something to the residence's kitchen window. Id.at 2:41 p.m. Castro
was able to get a good look at the individual's face before the individual fled. Id. Castro
indicated that the individual was holding a green heavy-duty bag. Id.The Court determines that
there is sufficient evidence Defendant entered a habitable property.
The People next must present facts that Defendant intended to commit a crime within the
habitable property. 9 G.C.A. 5 37.20(a). The People alleged that Defendant committed the crime
of Theft of Property in violation of 9 G.C.A 5 43.20(c). Under 9 G.C.A. 5 43.20(c), a person is
guilty of Theft of Property if he unlawfully takes or obtains or exercises unlawful control over
moveable property of another with the intent to deprive him thereof. 9 G.C.A. 5 43.30.
The People have offered sufficient evidence that Defendant committed the crime of Theft
of Property. Officer Lujan testified that Officer Babauta made contact with Francis Reyes - the
owner of the home located in Pigua, Merizo. Grand Juw Proceedings at 2:46 p.m. Upon Officer
Babauta's interview with Ms. Reyes, it was discovered that a Playstation was missing fiom her
home. Id. The Playstation was never recovered. Id. The Court determines that there was
The People of Guam vs. Leon Guerrero, CF509-08 Page 4 of 5 f -
sufficient evidence Defendant entered the habitable property of Francis Reyes with the intent to 1
commit the crime of Theft property. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion to
3 Dismiss the Indictment. 4 Castro gave a description of the individual as being a possible construction worker. Id.at 5 2:42 p.m. Officer Castro visited a nearby construction site and interviewed a Charlie Valencia 6
7 ("Valencia") - who was in charge of the construction site. Id.Valencia indicated that there was a
8 person who fit the description who was not presently on the site. Id. at 2:43 p.m. The individual
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Guerrero (People v. Guerrero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.