People v. Leon Guerrero

Opinion

FI LED

E;

1 CLERK OF COURT CLERKQE? CQURT

r*

2 2024 SEP 282% 'Ll PM lLi:! 009 SEP-l~

3 Q ,§F§ "'U'~,•-"'ir,,1

0

'AJ

-

1~ l:r,.,,_;r-,

i

,,..,,-llLJR l,U

.,=..@z*>.'»

1g-*

OF G* l A u ii. M

GUAii/1

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 ) CF0408-24 NO. CF0408-24

CRIMINAL CASE NO. CRIMINAL

PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, )) 24-13971 NO.: 24-13971

REPORTNO.:

GPD REPORT GPD

7 ))

vs. vs. )

8 )) 9 ))

ROBBY ALBERT LEON LEON GUERRERO, )) DECISION DECISION AND ORDER

) GRANTING THE MOTION FOR 10 10 DOB:

DOB:01/21/1988 01/21/1988 JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

))

111 ))

Defendant.

)

12 12 )) 13 13 )

14 This matter came before

matter came before the

the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino Honorable Alberto on Defendant Tolentino on Robby Defendant Robby

15 15 Albert lber LLeon Guerrero's eon G uerr (("Defendant")

"Defenda ooral

r Motion

M o r JJudgment o t i o n f for f AAcquittal u d m e n oof cquitt ffollowing l i tthe

16 16 17 close of of the

the People

People of

ofGuam's

Guam'scase-in-chief during the case-in-chiefduring the jury jury trial

trial on

on this

this matter

matter on

on August

August 28,

17

18 18 2024.

2024. The Defendant was was present

present with

with counsel

counsel Alternate

Alternate Public

Public Defender Peter Santos.

Santos. Chief

19 19 Prosecutor with with the

the Office

Office of

ofthe

the Attorney

Attorney General

General Gloria

GloriaRudolph

Rudolph was present on behalf of the was present

20 20 of Guam People of ("People").Upon Guam ("People"). consideration ofofthe Uponconsideration parties'oral theparties' arguments during oralarguments the during the

21 hearing hearing on the the motion, the witnesses' testimonies, testimonies, the

the evidence

evidence presented,

presented, and applicable applicable legal

22 23 23 authority, the Court GRANTED Defendant's Defendant's Motion

Motionfor

forJudgment of Acquittal Judgment of Acquittal from from the

the bench.

bench.

24 The Court now issues this this Decision

Decision and

and Order

Ordermemorializing

memorializing its decision.

25 I. RELEVANT 1. RELEVANT FACTS

FACTS

26 26 The Defendant The Defendant is

is charged

charged with:

with: (1) POSSESSION

POSSESSiqN OFF A

A SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE 11

II

27 27 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT INTENT TO

TO MANUFACTURE,

MANUFACTURE, DELIVER,

DELIVER, OR

OR

28 28

DISPOSE (As aa First DISPOSE (As First Degree Felony); and Degree Felony); and (2)

(2) POSSESSION

POSSESSIONOF

OF A

A SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE II

Decision Decision and

and Order Granting the

the Motion

Motion for Judgment of

of Acquittal

Acquittal

v. Leon Guerrero, CF0408-24 People v.

Page Page 1 of5

of

CONTROLLED CONTROLLEDSUBSTANCE SUBSTANCE(As a Third

(As Degree

a Third Felony).

Degree Indictment, Felony). Indictment,June

June21,

21, 2024.

2024. Upon

2 . . . . . .

asserting his asserting his right right to

to speedy

speedy trial,

dual, trial

trial for thls matter

for this matter commenced commenced on

on August

August 26,

26, 2024.

2024. On

On

3 28, 2024,

August 28, 2024,the thePeople

Peoplebegan

beganits

itscase-in-chief

case-in-chiefby

bycalling

calling Guam

GuamPolice

Police Department

Department(GPD)

(GPD)

4

5 Officer Officer Carl Carl Eugene

Eugene Due fas Castro

Duenas Castro who was

was questioned

questioned about the chain about the chainof

of custody

custody over

over two

5

6 6 items of of evidenced,

evidence1, which were

were eventually

eventually relinquished

relinquished to the

the court.

court. Jury Trial, 10:14:30-

10:14:30-

7 10:28:39AM 10:28:39AM (Aug.

(Aug. 28,

28, 2024).

8 The People called

called their

their second

second witness, Office Roque witness, Office Roque Pangelinan, Pangelinan, who testified testified that

that he

9 the one who stopped was the stopped the Defendant on June 14, 2024, June 14, 2024,and

andnoticed

noticedvisible

visible signs of distress, distress,

10 10

11 11 including including "deep "deep breathing

breathing and

and rubbing

rubbing his head

head and

and thighs." Jury

Jury Trial,

Trial, 10:33:20-35:30AM

10:33:20-35:30AM

~.

12 12 (Aug. 28, (Aug. 2024). Officer 28, 2024). OfficerPangelinan Pangelinanalso

alsoindicated

indicatedthat

that the

the Defendant»was

Defendant,was only

oply able

able to

to produce

produce

13 13 a Guam Identification card instead Guam Identification insteadof of aa Guam

GuamDriver's

Driver's License and registration. Id.

and registration. Id. at

at 10:35:38-

14 36:06AM.

15 15

The last witness the People called was Edward Perez, a criminalist with GPD. During witness the During 16 16

17 17 his testimony, the Court testimony, the Court certified certified Mr. Perez

Perez as

as an

an expert

expert in

in drug

drug analysis

analysis upon the

the People's

18 18 request.

request. Jury Trial, 11:00:20-11:00:80AM (Aug. 28, 11:00:20-11:00:30AM (Aug. 28, 2024).

2024). Following his

his certification,

certification, Mr.

19 19 . . . . . u Perez Perez testified testified about

about his drug

drug testing

testing procedures in general, procedures in general, and and also

also his

his testing

testing of the

the

20 methamphetamine thatwas methamphetamine that wasseized seized in

in this

this case.

case.Id.

Id. at

at 11:01

11:01:30-11

:30-11:05:27AM.

:05 :27AM.

21

At At the

the close

close of

ofthe

the People's

People'scase-in-chief,

case-in-chief, the

the Defendant

Defendant presented his oral presented his oral Motion Motion for

22

23 Judgment of Acquittal Judgment of Acquittal ("Motion"), ("Motion"), arguing

arguing that the People

that the People failed

failed to positively

positively identify

identify the

the

24 24 Defendant Defendant as the individual individual who

whocommitted

committedthe

thecharged

chargedoffenses

offenses beyond

beyond aa reasonable

reasonable doubt.

25 25 Jury Trial, Trial, 1:26:10-1:33:01PM (Aug. 28, 1:26:10-1:33:0lPM (Aug. 28, 2024).

26

27

28 11 Item Item 1 was 14 grams ofmethamphetamine methamphetamine seized at the crime scene.

scene. Item

Item 22 was

wasthe

theDefendant's

Defendant's wallet.

wallet.

Decision Decision and theMotion and Order Granting the Motion for Judgment ofAcquittal Judgment of Acquittal

People v. Guerrero, CF0408-24 v. Leon Guerrero,

Page Page 2 of 5 1 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 2 In In ruling on a motion for judgment judgment of acquittal,

acquittal, aa court

court"review[

"review[s] the

the evidence in

in the

3 light light most favorable to the People and and determine[s]

determine[ whether

whether any rational trier any rational trier of

of fact could have

4

5 found the essential found the elements of essential elements of the crime crime beyond

beyond aa reasonable

reasonable doubt."

doubt." People v. Win,

Wia, 2020

6 Guam 17, ,r,r 35-36 17, 1111 35-36(citing

(citing People v.

v. Song,

Song, 2012 Guam 21 ,r 26 (citing 21 1126 (citing People v.

v. Tennessee,

Tennessen,

77 ,r 14)), 2009 Guam 3311 14)); see also, 88 GCA see also, GCA §§ 90.21 90.21 (2005)

(2005) ("No

("No person

person may

may be

be convicted of an

convicted of an

8 offense unless each element unless each elementof

of the

the offense

offense is proved beyond a reasonable reasonabledoubt.").

doubt."). "This

"This is a

9 'highly 'highly deferential deferential standard of review."'

standard of review."' Song, ,r 26 (quoting Song, 2012 Guam 21 1126 (quoting People v.

v. Tenorio,

Tenorio,

10

11 2007 19,r1]9).

Guam 19

2007 Guam 9).However, However,"the

"the People

People 'must

'must be

be afforded

afforded the

the strongest

strongestlegitimate

legitimateview

view of

12 12 the evidence and all reasonable that may reasonable inferences that may be be drawn

drawntherefrom."'

therefroln."' Id.

Id. at ,r 28

at 1] 28 (quoting

13 13 State Statev.v. Sick, Sisk, 343 s.w.3d 60,

343 S.W.3d 60, 65

65 (Tenn.

(Tenn. 2011)).

2011)).

14 14 Moreover, Moreover, "[i]t

"[i]tisisnot

nothe

theprovince

provinceofofthe

thecourt,

court,in

indetermining

determining [a

[a motion

motion for

for aa judgment

judgment

15 15 16 of of acquittal], acquittal], to resolve resolve Conflicts

conflicts in

in the

the evidence,

evidence, to

to pass

pass upon the

the credibility of

of witnesses,

witnesses, to

16

17 17 determine the plausibility determine the plausibility of of explanations, or to

explanations, or to weigh weigh the

the evidence,

evidence; such

such matters are for the

matters are

18 18 jury. *** *** [Instead,

[Instead,t]he

t]hecourt

courtisisconcerned

concerned with

with the

the existence

existence or

or nonexistence of evidence, not its 19 | . . . 1 weight, . . . and and thls

this standard remainsconstant standard remains constanteven evenwhen

whenthe

thePeople

People rely

rely exclusively

exclusively on

20 circumstantial evidence.

evidence. Win

Wia at ,r 36.

at 'H 36. (numerous

(numerous citations

citations omitted);

omitted), see also, People see also, People v.v. Cruz, 21

1998 1998 Guam 18 ,r'H99("A Guam 18 ("A court determines whether a judgment of acquittal acquittal should

should be granted by

22

23 23 applying the same sametest

testused

usedwhen

whenthe

thesufficiency

sufficiencyof

ofthe

theevidence

evidenceisischallenged.").

challenged.").

24 24 "Identification "Identificationofofthe

thedefendant

defendant as

as aa person

person who committed

committed the

the charged crime is always 25 25 an essential element which essential element which the government must establish establish beyond aa reasonable doubt." United reasonable doubt."

26 States States v.v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1477, 1490

1490 (9th Cir. 1995),

1995), as amended

amendedon

ondenial

denialofreh'g

ofren'g (Apr.

27 27

28 11, 1995)(citing United United States

States v. Telfaire,

faire, 469 F.2d

F.2d 552, 555, 559

552,555, 559 (D.C.Cir.1972);

(D.C.Cir.1972), United

United States

States

Decision Decision and Granting the and Order Granting theMotion Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Judgment of Acquittal

People v.

v. Leon

Leon Guerrero,

Guerrero, CF0408-24

CF0408-24

Page Page 3 of 1 v.

v. Feaster, Fenster, 449 449 F.Supp. 435, 439

F.Supp. 435, 439 (E.D.Mich.1978)).

(E.D.Mich.1978)). However, However, in-coud

in-court identification

identification by a

2 witness is not necessarily required.

required. United

United States v.

v. Fern, 696 F.2d

F.2d 1269,

1269,1276

1276(11th

(nth Cir.1983).

3 "Identification "Identificationcan canbe

be inferred

inferredfrom

fromall

allthe

thefacts

facts and

and circumstances that are circumstances that arein

inevidence."

evidence." United

United

4

5 States States v. Weed, Weed, 689 752, 754

689 F.2d 752, 754(7th

(7thCir.1982).

Cir.1982)."[A]

"[A] witness

witness need

need not

not physically

physically point

point out

out aa

6 defendant so long defendant so long as the evidence is sufficient as the sufficient to to permit

permit the

the inference

inference that

that the

the person

person on trial

7 the person was the person who who committed the

the crime."

crime." United

United States

States v.v. Darrell,

Darrell, 629 F.2d 1089,

1089, 1091

1091 (5th

8 Cir.1980).See See also, United

United States

States v. Miller,

Miller, 797

797 Fed.

Fed. Apps.

Appx. 288

288 (9th

(9th Cir.

Cir. 2019)

2019) (appellate

(appellate court

court

9 reversed robbery conviction conviction because

because the

the government failed to tie tie defendant

defendant to the scene

scene of the

the

10

11 11 crime or identify identify him

him as

as the

the person

person driving the

the getaway

getaway van

van and,

and, therefore, "no

"no rational

rational juror

12 12 court concludebeyond beyond a reasonable doubt that Miller [committed that Miller [committed the robbery].").

13 13 While an

an in-court

in-court identification

identification of

ofthe

the Defendant

Defendant is

is not

not generally

generally required

required to

to establish

establish

14 14

2

identity, the evidenced was insufficient to permit the was the inference inference that

that the person on trial was the 15 15 16 person who who committed

committed the

the crime.

crime. Although

Although Officer

Officer Castro

Castro and

and GPD Criminalist

Criminalist Perez had

had no

16

17 17 interactions with the the Defendant

Defendant that

thatcould

couldestablish

establishaapositive

positiveidentification,

identification, Officer

Officer Pangelinan

18 18 would have have been able

able to positively

positively identify

identify the

the Defendant,

Defendant, because he was because he was the

the officer

officer who

19 19 pulled over, questioned, questioned, and

and arrested the Defendant arrested the Defendant on June 14, 2024.

June 14, 2024. Because

Because none

none of

of the

20 20 witnesses asked to witnesses were asked to positively positively identify

identify the

the Defendant

Defendant during

during the trial, it is

is conceivable

conceivable that

that

21

the the individual individual stopped the evening of stopped on the ofJune June 14,

14, 2024, may not be the same 2024, may same individual individual who

22

23 23 appeared in the appeared in the courtroom courtroom for

for trial.

trial.

24 24 Based on the circumstantial evidence presented, circumstantial evidence presented, the the People

People argue that they

argue that they have met

25 their burden in proving burden in proving beyond a reasonable doubt the reasonable doubt the Defendant's Defendant's identification identification as

as an

an essential

26 26

27

2 28 2 The following The items were following items parties as the parties

stipulated by the

were stipulated as evidence evidence for this

this case:

case: Custody

Custody receipts

receiptsof

of Items

Items 1l and

and 2,

2;

Curriculum vitae vitae of Edward Perez,

Perez; lab

lab report prepared

prepared byby Edward

Edward Perez;

Perez, and

and Chain

Chain of

of Custody

Custody Report

Report for

for Items 1l

and 2. and 2. Jury Jury Trial, 1:23:47-1:24:48PM Trial, 1:23:47-l (Aug. 28, :24:48PM (Aug. 28, 2024).

Decision Decision and

and Order

Order Granting the Motion Granting the Motion for

for Judgment of Acquittal Judgment of

People v. CF0408-24 v. Leon Guerrero, CF0408-24 Page 4 of 1 element of both both crimes charged.

charged. By entering the Defendant's wallet into evidence entering the evidence as as Item

Item 2, the

2 . . - .

People argue People argue that that the

the Defendant's

Defendant's identification was established, identification was established, because the the Defendant's

Defendant's wallet

wallet

3 3 held the Guam identification card the Defendant's Guam card within it. Jury Trial, 1:35:30-1:35:56PM l:35:30-1:35:56PM (Aug.

4 28, 2024).

2024). The The additional

additional circumstantial evidencethat circumstantial evidence thatthe thePeople

Peopleoffered

offeredas

as proof

proof of the

the

5

6 6 Defendant's Defendant's identification identificationininthis

thiscase

casewas

wasthe

the fact

factthat

that the

the Defendant

Defendant had

had been in custody

custody since

7 7 he was arrested.

arrested.Id.

Id. at

at l:34:57-1:35:34PM.

1:34:57-1:35:34PM.

8 Looking at

at the

the evidence

evidence in

in the

the light

light most

most favorable

favorable to

to the

the nonmoving

nonmoving party,

party, aa Guam

Guam

9 identification identification card that is enclosed in a wallet, which that is which is is altogether

altogether encased

encased in a sealed envelope 10 10

II 11 neither opened opened nor

nor presented

presentedtotothe

thejury,

jury,isisnot

notenough

enoughfor

for any

anyrational

rationaltrier

trierof

of fact to conclude

12 12 that the Defendant that the Defendant in in the

the courtroom

courtroomwas

wasthe

thesame

sameperson

personwho

whoOfficer

Officer Pangelinan pulled pulled over

13 13 and arrestedon and arrested onthe theevening

evening of June 14, 2024.

June 14, 2024.After

After examining the

the testimony,

testimony, the

the circumstantial

circumstantial

14 14 evidence, and the evidence stipulated and the by the stipulated by the parties, parties,in

in aalight

light most

most favorable

favorable to the People, the the

15 15 Court finds Court finds in favor favor of

ofthe

the Defendant's

Defendant's acquittal as the acquittal as the People

People failed

failed to prove

prove beyond

beyond aa

16 16

17 17 reasonable doubt an reasonable doubt an essential essential element

element of the crimes charged:

charged: that the Defendant that the Defendant on trial was

18 18 also the Defendant Robby Albert Defendant Robby Albert Leon Leon Guerrero

Guerrero who

who committed

committed the

the both

both offenses charged

charged on

19 19 or about about June 14, 2024.

June 14, 2024. Indictment, June 21, 2024.

June 21

20 20 II CONCLUSION Ill.CONCLUSION

21

For the

the reasons set forth

reasons set forth above,

above, the

the Court

Court GRANTS

GRANTS the

the Defendant's

Defendant's Motion for

22 Judgment of Acquittal Judgment of Acquittal on all charges.

23

l

24 24 SO ORDERED

ORDEREDthis

this 94202%

SEP Q-4 28&

25 -----------

26 ( SERVICEvIAE-MML I acknowledge that an electronic 1 5

mp of due original was emailegl W'

27 27 116, , n m / HONORABLE HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINOTOLENTINO 28 QfqwWW Judge, Judge, Superior Court of Guam Guam

ma :cm,so

Decision Decision and

and Order

Order Granting the Motion for the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Judgment of

People People v. Leon Guerrero, CF0408-24 Page Page 5 of