People v. Hennegan

Opinion

FlLED

SUPERIOR COURT

OF (AM

l

2 2020 DEC 22 PH 6: 13

3 CLERK CLF COURT 4 BY:.,... s*!=*Hl"l"*

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7

8 )

PEOPLE OF GUAM 9 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CM0094-20 9 )

10 plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

) DECISION AND ORDER:

12 FRANCIS FRANK HENNEGAN, ) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss On De Minims Grounds

13 )

Defendant. )

14

1. INTRODUCTION 15

16 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Maria T. Cenzon on June 19, 2020 as a Motion

17 Hearing for Defendant Francis Frank Hennegan's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss the matter 18 under 9 GCA § 7.67. Defendant was represented by Assistant Public Defender Zachary C.

19 Taimanglo. Assistant Attorneys General Alysa Draper-Dehart and Carol Hinlde Sanchez 20 represent the People of Guam (the "People"). All parties were present at the hearing via Zoom 21

22 platform.

23 After reviewing the Parties' written briefs and the record on file with the court, the arguments 24 . . . .

presented Ar the Motlon Hearing, and the applicable statutes and case law, the court now issues 25 this Decision and Order ruling on the Motion and GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, 26

27 for the reasons specific to the Motion and as memorialized herein.

28

People v. Hennegnn, CM0094-20 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 1 of 3 l II. BACKGROUND 2 Defendant was arrested on February 24, 2020. Defendant was accused of:

3 1. Retail Theft (as a Misdemeanor), and 4 2. Resisting Arrest (as a Misdemeanor). 5 The accusations stem from an incident in which Defendant was alleged to have taken a bottle 6 of Michael Kors Twilight Shimmer perfume and then, upon apprehension by the Guam Police 7

8 Department ("GPD"), "tensing up" and becoming uncooperative while handcuffs were being

9 placed on him. See Mot. ro Dismiss Ar p. 1. (Apr. 17, 2020), Magistrate's Con pl. (Feb. 25,

10 2020). Defendant has a history of mental illness the state of which has been placed at issue and is 11 detailed in CM0470-15, CM0137-17, CF0638-18, CM0018-19, and CM0401-19. Mot. at P 2.

12

13 HL LAW AND ANALYSIS 14 The Defendant moves to dismiss the action based on De minimum grounds. Guam Law 15 provides:

16

17 The court shall dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct 18 charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant's conduct:

[9 (a) Was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negated by the 20 person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense;

21 (b) Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought ro be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the 22 condemnation of the conviction, or 23 (c) Presents such other extenuations that it cannot be reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense. The court shall not dismiss 24 a prosecution under this subsection without filing a written statement of its reasons.

25 9 GCA § 7.67.

26 In analyzing the statute, the Guam Supreme Court has noted that the crucial inquiry for 27 . . . . . . .. . n .

the trlal court in determlnxng whether to dlsrmss on De mznzmus grounds is: the rlsk of harm ro 28 which society is exposed by defendant's conduct." People v. Perez, 2004 Guam 4, iI 12.

People v. Hennegan, CM0094-20 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 2 of 3 l Additionally, the Guam Supreme Court stated that a dismissal based on the De minimum statute is 2 proper where even if guilt were proven, a "conviction would be inappropriate, and .. . authorizes 3 the trial court to mitigate the general provisions of t he c ri mi na l l a w tO prevent absurd 4 applications." Id. At 4, '][ 10.

5

6 Here, during the hearing regarding this matter on June 19, 2020, the People did not

7 dispute the mental status of the Defendant. The Defendant also was alleged to have taken only 8 one bottle of perfume that was recovered and in evidence. Hr'g at 10:09:31 AM. Further, the 9 Defendant was detained beginning on February 25, 2020 until June for four months. Hr'g at 10

11 10:14:00 AM. Considering the record, the charges alleged, the nature of the circumstances

12 surrounding the Defendant's actions on February 24, 2020 including the uncontested mental 13 health of the Defendant, and the Defendant's detainment after arrest by court order in the Guam 14 Behavioral Health Facility, the court finds for the Defendant on the Motion to Dismiss under the 15

16 De minimum statute, 9 G C A §7.67. Hr'g at 10: 15:06 AM.

17 Iv. CONCLUSION 18

The court hereby GRANTS Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS finding that the interest of 19

20 justice has been served in this matter due to Defendant's four month long detainment where

21 Defendant's liberties were restricted and in light of Defendant's uncontested mental health and, 22 finally, that no restitution is being sought by the victim in this case.

23

24 S0 0RDERED this l DEC 22 2020 25 r

26 HON LE MARIA T. CENZON 27 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

28

People v. Hennegan, CM0094-20 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Page 3 of 3