People v. Madeus & Rugante

Opinion

I tr{ r q s sr. k4 2 cc

10-

2

3

4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 8 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF 0023-14 V.

9 FRANCIS CHARLIE MADEUS, and 10 MINORICHY NISAR T. RUGANTE, DECISION AND ORDER

11 Defendants.

12

13

14 INTRODUCTION

15 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 22nd day of May, 16

17 2015, for a hearing on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on Acquittal and Motion for New

18 Trial. Assistant Attorney General Basil O'Mallan represented the People of Guam ("People"), 19 Attorney Douglas B. Moylan represented Defendant Madeus, and Attorney William Pole 20 represented Defendant Rugante ("Defendants"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 21 DENIES Defendants' Motion for Judgment on Acquittal and Motion for New Trial.

22

23 BACKGROUND

24 On February 21, 2015, Francis Madeus was convicted of third degree criminal sexual 25 conduct, and Minorichy Rugante was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct. The 26 Court filed a Decision and Order on March 3, 2015 denying both defendants' oral motions for 27

28 judgment of acquittal. The very same day, Defendant Madeus filed a Motion for New Trial and

DECISION AND ORDER CF 0023-14; People v. Rugante & Madeus

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. Defendant Rugante joined Defendant Madeus' motions on 1

2 March 4, 2015. The Court filed a Scheduling Order on April 23, 2015. The Scheduling Order

3 calendared Defendants' Motion for Judgment on Acquittal and Motion for New Trial on May 4 22, 2015. At this hearing, Defendants requested, and the People did not object to, a continuance 5 for Defendants' private translator to finish working on the translation used at trial. Defendants 6 filed their transcript on June 3, 2015. On June 17, 2015 Defendant Rugante filed his Request 7

8 for New Trial and Memorandum of Points and Authorities. That same day, the People filed

9 their Opposition to Defendant's Motion of Acquittal and for New Trial. On June 19, 2015, 10 Defendant Madeus filed his Supplemental Memorandum supporting Motion for New Trial.

11 DISCUSSION

12

13 The proper procedure to raise an objection to the use of an interpreter is at trial. People

14 v. Nu uid , 1991 WL 336901 ¶ 4 (D. Guam. App. 1991) ("A reviewing court is unlikely to find

15 that a defendant received a fundamentally unfair trial due to an inadequate translation in the 16 absence of contemporaneous objections to the quality of the interpretation."); See Ramos v.

17 T er r y 622 S.E.2d 339, 343 (Ga. 2005) (holding that failure to object to the interpreter's 18

19 performance at the habeas hearing waives the issue on appeal of denial of the writ of habeas

20 corpus); Pineda v. State , 651 S.E.2d 148, 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that failure to 21 contemporaneously object to the translator's translation of testimony waives objection on 22 appeal). Contemporaneous objection promotes fair and correct resolution of a claim of error 23 both at trial and on appeal, and thereby furthers the interest of reliability and finality. People v.

24

25 Earp, 20 Cal. 4th 826, 893, 978 P.2d 15, 58 (1999). In this case, Defendants failed to object to

26 the interpretation of the translation at any point during trial. 27

28

Page 2 of 3

DECISION AND ORDER CF 0023-14; People v. Rugante & Madeus

Lastly, Defendant Rugante made separate arguments in addition to joining Defendant 1

2 Madeus' motion. The Court alludes to its previous Decision and Orders addressing Defendant

3 Rugante' s separate arguments. 4 CONCLUSION

5 For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on Acquittal and 6 Motion for New Trial are DENIED.

7

8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED this AUG312 5 10

11 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 12 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 SERVICE VIA CC) " F' . 6OX I acknowledge that a copy the original hereto was placed in the 27 court box of:

28

Page 3 of 3