People v. Johnny, Dois

Opinion

oo Oo NN OH eR WH NY eK

ob wo wv NY N NN WN NN NO ee RR Re Re CoO ~~ HN AN BR WH NY KF OO Oo ON DW OH FF WD NY YF OS

rs 42 pee ube €f ‘te ¢ {

s

SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM 2021 JUL 26 PH 1:58 CLERK OF GOURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAMBy: . THE PEOPLE OF GUAM ) Criminal Case No. CF0124-20 ) GPD Report No.: 20-05303 VS. ) ) SAHN JOHNNY ) aka SAHN LONELY JOHNNY ) DOB: 01/19/1989 ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. ) RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS ROY ANTHONY JOHNNY ) RIOTING (As A Third Degree Felony) DOB: 12/26/1990 ) CHARGES IN INDICTMENT ) (Defendant Haggai Dois) ADVENTUS CHRIS DOIS ) DOB: 12/08/1998 ) ) HAGGAI DOIS ) DOB: 06/22/1996, ) ) Defendants. ) ) INTRODUCTION

This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on Defendant Haggai Dois’s (“Haggai” or “Defendant”) renewed motion to dismiss the charge of Rioting (As a Third Degree Felony) as contained in the Indictment against Defendant. Haggai, represented by Attorney Gloria Rudolph, filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on June 10, 2021. The People’s Opposition was due on June 24, 2021; but, the People did not file an Opposition or Non-Opposition. The Court has addressed the identical issue on the pleadings of co-defendants Roy Anthony Johnny and Adventus Chris Dois and on the allegations set forth against Defendant Haggai, the Court finds that good cause supports GRANTING the renewed Motion to Dismiss

the Rioting charges against Defendant for the reasons set forth herein.

People v. Johnny et al., CFO124-20 Decision and Order Re. Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Defendant Haggai Dois)

Page | of 6 oO wo HN DO FF WO HP Fe

Oo NO NO NHN PN KN KN NN NR mR Rm Re RO Re Re Re oOo NI BN A FPF WHO NY FY CO HO WOW NN DB A FP WHO NO | OS

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Court incorporates by reference herein the Procedural History set forth in its Decision and Order previously issued on April 16, 2021. Decision and Order Re. Motion to Dismiss Indictment (April 16, 2021). As additional relevant history, the Court ordered the People to file its Bill of Particulars within ten (10) days of the issuance of its Decision. Jd. at 12. The People failed to file its Bill of Particulars within the time allotted in the Decision and Order, but filed it untimely on May 24, 2021, less than one hour prior to the scheduled hearing on Defendants’ renewed motions. In its submission, the People recognized that the Court-ordered deadline to submit the Bill of Particulars was on April 26, 2021, but provided no explanation justifying its untimeliness. Bill of Particulars at 2 (May 24, 2021). Moreover, the People did not file an Opposition to the renewed Motion by the June 24, 2021, deadline.

DISCUSSION

As the Court previously ruled in its April Decision, the Indictment is defective as to Defendant Haggai because it fails to give adequate notice to these defendants of the particular felony or misdemeanor that he intended to commit or facilitate “when they did knowingly participate with four or more others in a course of disorderly conduct.” Decision and Order Re. Motion to Dismiss Indictment at 10-12 (April 16, 2021). Reviewing the People’s Bill of Particulars, nothing in the submission provides further notice to Defendant. The Court reviews each applicable paragraph of the Bill of Particulars in turn.

Paragraph 1 of the People’s Bill of Particulars provides the following:

1. GPD Officer T. Walker will testify that on February 20, 2020, he, along with other GPD officers arrived at an apartment complex behind Kmart in Tamuning. He had observed a large number of individuals were yelling loudly, that Officer RS Cruz was struggling with a made individual at Michu Auto, which is next to the business. Defendants SAHN JOHNNY, ROY ANTHONY JOHNNY, ADVENTUS CHRIS DOIS, and HAGGAI DOIS were a part of this group. Marie Sos, a victim, stated that

People v. Johnny et al., CFO124-20 Decision and Order Re. Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Defendant Haggai Dois)

oO wn nr DB A FF WHO NY

wo bo NH YN HN DN NO NO DN RR Rm Ree RRR ao nN WN OH FR DH NY KF OO UO Oo NHN DB OA FP WO NO KF OS

an argument occurred and that SAHN JOHNNY had struck her in the head

- with a pipe and that she observed that SAHN JOHNNY had struck ADVENTUS DOIS with a rock. Sos added that she tried to get other family members to back away from the scene and that other members of SAHN JOHNNY 's family were walking towards the scene. Sos added that a lot of pushing, punching and yelling occurred at that time.

People’s Bill of Particulars at 2. Nothing in this paragraph identifies the felony or misdemeanor which Defendant intended to commit or facilitate when he “did knowingly participate with four or more others in a course of disorderly conduct.”

Paragraph 3 of the Bill of Particulars alleges:

3. GPD Officer R. S. Corpuz will testify that on February 20, 2020, he arrived at the apartment complex on Harmon Industrial Park and observed about 20 people in the parking lot. Officer Corpuz observed that several people were by a concrete wall and that others around them appeared to be irate and being held back from a verbal confrontation within groups of people in the parking lot. The individuals were speaking aloud of a physical confrontation that occurred prior to the police arrival and that their frustration was directed towards the male individual at Michu Auto Body Shop. Officer Corpuz spoke with HAGGAI DOIS, who stated that SAHN JOHNNY was one of the guys that hit his mother, Marie Sos. Officer Corpuz had to direct HAGGAI DOIS several times to calm down and that he was inciting others in the crowd to act out in an unlawful behavior.

Id. Nothing in Paragraph 3 provides the necessary detail required to provide Defendant with notice of the Rioting charge sufficient to adequately prepare a defense. Paragraph 3 indicates that Haggai Dois is a possible witness to Sahn Johnny’s alleged actions, but the facts as set forth in the Bill of Particulars at best describe the offense of Disorderly Conduct (As a Petty Misdemeanor) and not the felony or misdemeanor offense required for Rioting.

Paragraph 4 of the Bill of Particulars provides:

4. GPD Officer M. Medina will testify that on February 20, 2020, that he arrived with Officer R. Perez at the apartment complex on Harmon Industrial Park Road and observed two sets of groups, both sets having approximately ten individuals each, most of which appeared intoxicated. ADVENTUS CHRIS DOIS and HAGGAI DOIS were in one group and were irate and were loud exchanging words with the other group and

People v. Johnny et al., CFO124-20 Decision and Order Re. Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Defendant Haggai Dois)

oO wo HN Dn FP YW YP

NO NO NH YN HN DN DN DP NO Re RRR Re oN NHN OH KR WHO NY FKF& CO OO OO NHN DB A FP WO NY KH OS

asking to fight-despite attempts by police to calm down and disperse. They

continued calling out people to fight. Officer Medina will had observed

[sic] Marie Sos point out SAHN JOHNNY as the one who had assaulted

her. Officer Medina also observed injuries to SAHN JOHNNY's knees and

feet and that SAHN JOHNNY stated that he had sustained those injuries

when he and ROY ANTHONY JOHNNY fought ADVENTUS CHRIS

DOIS and UAGGAI DOIS. Id. This Paragraph indicates that, as to Defendant Haggai Dois, he is alleged to be “irate” and “loud exchanging words with the other group and asking to fight.” However, as indicated, these actions form the offense charged as Disorderly Conduct (as a Petty Misdemeanor) “when they recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance and alarm by engaging in fighting or tumultuous behavior and the defendants intended to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience and they persisted in the conduct after a reasonable warning and request to desist, in violation of 9 GCA §§ 61.15 (a) (1), (b) and (c), as amended.” As such, Paragraph 4 also fails to provide the requisite information regarding the felony or misdemeanor the Defendant is alleged to have intended to commit or facilitate in the course of rioting.

An indictment is an accusation in writing, presented by the grand jury to a competent court, charging a person with a felony, or a felony and a related misdemeanor. 8 GCA § 50.54; People of Guam v. San Nicolas, 2013 Guam 21 J 11. “The indictment serves two essential purposes: it affirms that the grand jury found probable cause for the charges in the indictment, and it gives the defendant notice of the charges.” Jd. J 12. Guam law requires an indictment to be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and signed by the prosecuting attorney. 8 G.C.A § 55.10. As previously discussed in this Court’s earlier Decision and Order Re. Motion to

Dismiss, an indictment is sufficient when it apprises a defendant of the crime with which he is

charged so as to enable him to prepare his defense. People v. Torres, 2014 Guam 8 { 20 (quoting

People v. Johnny et al., CFO124-20 Decision and Order Re. Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Defendant Haggai Dois)

o oOo SYS DW A BR DO NY eS

mo NY NO HN NH PY VP DN DN Rm oo SN DN UA BP WHO NY FY CO HO DO NT DB WH —&— WHO NO YF OS

People v. Jones, 2006 Guam 13 12). An indictment which tracks the words of the statute charging the offense is sufficient if the words unambiguously set forth all the elements of the offense. People v. Quenga, 2015 Guam 39 { 58 (citing Torres, supra). On the other hand, an indictment is insufficient if it does not apprise the defendant “with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation against him.” Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 765 (1962). The Supreme Court of Guam similarly held that an indictment is insufficient where it “uses the generic expression set forth in the statute without specifying which of a variety of activities, any one of which would be criminal, that the defendant must defend against or which the grand jury considered.” Torres { 31. An indictment is read in its entirety and construed with common sense. Id. J 20 (citation omitted).

When the indictment fails, as it did here, to properly apprise the defendant of the nature of the charges against him and fails to specify the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare his defense, the Court may order the People to file a Bill of Particulars pursuant to 8 G.C.A. § 55.30. The Bill of Particulars “require[s] the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a clarification of the pleading containing such particulars as may be necessary for the preparation of the defense.”

Reading the Indictment together with the People’s Bill of Particulars, the People continue to fail to apprise the Defendant Haggai Dois “with reasonable certainty” of the nature of the accusation against him. Specifically, the People have not specified what requisite felony or misdemeanor crime attendant to the charge of rioting the Defendant is alleged to have been committing or facilitating. Thus, despite the opportunities given to the People to establish the factual basis for the Rioting charge against Defendant Haggai Dois, the People have been unable

to cure the defect in the Indictment.

People v. Johnny et al., CFO124-20 Decision and Order Re. Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Defendant Haggai Dois)

oO moe tN DH A FP W YY

N No NO dN NO N No. N N — e — ae ee — e — — — oa DON TH BR WO NO KH CO ODO WDA AN HR A FP WwW YP YF OD

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Haggai Dois’s renewed Motion to Dismiss the Indictment with respect to the Rioting charge filed against him. The Court has provided the People with more than adequate opportunity to cure any defects in the Indictment and the People have continued to fail to do so. The remaining charges against Haggai Dois of Disorderly Conduct (As a Petty Misdemeanor) and Public Drunkenness (As a Violation) are unaffected by this Decision and Order.

SO ORDERED this 26" day of July, 2021.

62 ONORABE! E MARIA T. CENZON HONOR Or SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

People v. Johnny et al., CFO124-20 Decision and Order Re. Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Defendant Haggai Dois)

Pave 60f 6