People v. Latsnic

Opinion

·\L ,E-e:·o 'f :1 »L ,,

;QLERK GF BLERK OF CGURY COURT 1 2825 J! -8 P?'1 up "e 2

3 $U?ER§G?*2 scum' OF GLQQM SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 THE PEOPLE OF OF GUAM GUAM

7 Plaintiff; Plaintiff, Case No. CF0373 CF0373-24

8 vs. AMENDED DECISION DECISION AND ANDORDER ORDERON on 99 RICHARD ALLYN LATSNIC MOTION IN LIMINE

10 Defendants. 11 11

INTRODUCTION

14 This matter came before the Honorable John C. Terlaje on January 8, 2025, 2025, for for the Jury 15 15 Trial of Richard Allyn Allyn Latsmc. Latsnic. The The Court Court addressed People's Notice and Motion in Limine Limine to 16 16 A dm it E v idence Under R u le 4413. 1 3 . PPublic u blic D efender Attorney Defender t t or ney William illia m Bischoff Bischoff aappeared ppea r ed for for 17 Defendant Defendant Richard Allyn Allyn Latsnic Latsnic and and Assistant Assistant Attorney Attorney General General Christine Christine Tenorio appeared appeared for 18 the People of Guam ("People"). ("People"). In In accordance accordance with with its its ruling ruling from from the the bench, bench, the the Court Court now 19 19 issues the following order GR ANTING the People's Motion in Limine. GRANTING 20 PROCEDURE 21 On January 77, 22025, 0 the the PPeople eople filed filed its its M Otion in Motion in Limine regarding ding Guam Rules of of 22

23 Evidence ("GRE") ("GR E") 413. 3 . People's Mot. in Lim. No No opposition opposition was filed by the the Defense. Defense. The

24 Court reviewed the motions and applicable law law and and ruled ruled from the bench on January 8, 2025.

25 Amended Amended Decision Decision and 26 Order on Motion in in Limine Limine 27 27 CF0373-24, People PeopleofofGuam Guamv.v. Richard RichardAllyn Allyn Latsnic Page 1 of of3 1 1 RULINGS 2 I. People's People'sMotion Motion'alinLimine Limineto toAdmit AdmitEvidence Evidence Under UnderRule Rule 413 413 3 The Court GRANTS the People's People's Motion Motiontotoadmit admitevidence evidencepursuant pursuant to Rule 413 413 of the 4

5 GRE. The The People Peoplehave havemoved movedto to allow allowthe thevictim victimtototestify testifyregarding regardingother othersex sexacts acts that that occurred 5

6 6 during the charged time period, but which which are are not charged charged against the defendant in this case. case. In

77 Chined, Chine!, the Guam Supreme Supreme Court Courtused usedaathree-factor three-factortest testto to determine determine whether whetheraaprior prior offense offense

8 or conduct is admissible. admissible. Chined,2013 Chine!, Guam 24 ,r 1121. Thistest 21. This testincludes includes 1) the present case must

9 9 include criminal sexual include criminal sexual conduct conductcharges, charges,2)2)the the evidence evidence proffered proffered must mustbe be evidence evidence of the the 10 10 defendant's commission commission of ofanother another past act of of sexual sexual assault,and assault, 3) the past act must mustbe berelevant. relevant. 11 11 This Court Court has has found that that the current case involves current case involves criminal criminal sexual sexual conduct conduct charges charges and the 12 12 evidence proffered profft:redincludes includes uncharged uncharged instances instances of ofsexual sexual acts acts between between the the defendant defendant and and the 13 13 victim. Furthermore, victim. Furthermore, the the Court Court finds finds these these acts acts are relevant relevant as as they are similar similar to the acts charged 14 14 15 in in this criminal sexual conduct case case and andinvolve involve the same defendant and andvictim. victim. As As stated stated by the 15 16 People People in in its its Motion, Motion, Rule Rule413 413 supersedes Rule 404(b)'s supersedes Rule 404(b)'s prohibition prohibition on on similar similar conduct conduct to show 16

17 17 propensity. Propensity.

18 18 The Court Court has also also considered a balancing test as asrequired requiredunder underGuam GuamRule Ruleof ofEvidence Evidence

19 19 403 403 to determine determine if the the probative value of ofthe the 413 413 evidence evidence is is not not substantially substantially outweighed by 20 20 unfair prejudice to aa defendant, using the defendant, using the framework framework provided provided in United United States States v. Lemmy, Lemay, 260 21 F.3d 1018. 1018. 1026-27 (9th Cir. Cir. 2001). 2001). Wesen, Wesen, 2022 2022 Guam Guam 18 ,r 47. Under Leman, 18 1147. Lemay, the trial court court 22 should consider, consider, but butisisnot notlimited limited to: toi 1) the similarity of ofthe the prior prior acts acts to the the acts charged, 2) 2) the 23 closeness in time of ofthe the prior prior acts acts to the acts charged, charged, 3) 3) the the frequency frequency of the prior acts, 4) the acts, 4) 24 presence presence or lack of of intervening intervening circumstances, and 5) circumstances, and 5) the the necessity necessity of of the evidence beyond the 25

Amended Decision Decision and and 26 Order on Motion Motion in Limine 27 CF0373-24,People People of ofGuam Guam v. v. Richard Richard Allyn Allyn Latsnic Page 2 of3 1 testimonies already offered at trial. Chine!, 2013 Guam 24 ,I 36. The Court finds that the charged 2 sex acts include similar conduct to the other acts the victim may discuss and occurred in the same 3 time period. There are no intervening circumstances, and the victim's testimony is the main 4 evidence that will be offered at trial. 5

6 CONCLUSION AND ORDER

7 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the People's Motion in Limine and

8 ORDERS the testimony from the victim showing that Defendant Richard Allyn Latsnic

9 engaged in other incidents of sexual conduct with the minor in addition to the charged

incidents to be admissible. 11

12 ,- ',

13 SO ORDERED, this _ _ _ day of ~t!A JMWl.l 2025. 14

18 Judge, ourt of Guam

20 SERVICE VIA EMAIL 21 I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to:

23 Date: i/J&ijime: Q:.O&,.,,,,, 24 c,,,..-z,,..,---- 25 Amend:ed Decision and 26 Order on Motion in Limine 27 CF03 73-24, People of Guam v. Richard Allyn Latsnic Page3 of3