People v. Mafnas

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: April 9, 2012
• Docket: CF0062-11
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILFD

2 -'d !;-\T -. t '/ .\_)1_1,-\ l 3 '-c_

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF062-11 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) 7 ) ) 8 ) vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 ) (Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence ) & Motion in Limine) 10 FELIP TED TAO TAO MAFNAS, ) ) DOB: 1012511967 ) 11 Defendant. ) 12 ) ) 13

14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on March 8, 2012, for a hearing 16 on Felip Tedtaotao Mafnas' ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress and Motion in Limine. Assistant 17

18 Public Defender Maria G. Fitzpatrick appeared on behalf of Defendant. Assistant Attorney

19 General Brian D. Gallagher appeared on behalf of the People of Guam ("the People"). Upon 20 review of the evidence, oral and written arguments, and legal authorities presented by both 21 attorneys, the Court hereby issues this Decision and Order. 22

23 BACKGROUND

24 A Magistrate's Complaint was filed on February 5, 2011, charging Defendant on the 25 st following: (1) First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1 Degree Felony) and (2) Incest 26 (As a Misdemeanor) (Six Counts). Magistrate's Compliant (Feb. 5, 2011). On that same day, 27 Defendant appeared for a Magistrate's Hearing and was appointed counsel. The Magistrate 28

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafuas (CF062-11) Page I ofiO Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine Court also set bail for Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) cash. Super. Ct. of Guam Minute 1

2 Entry (Feb. 5, 2011). Subsequently, Defendant was indicted on February 15, 2011, on the

3 following charges: (1) First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st Degree Felony) (Three

4 rd Counts) (2) Incest (As a Misdemeanor) (Four Counts) and (3) Child Abuse (As a 3 Degree 5 Felony) (Three Counts). Indictment (Feb. 11, 2011). On February 23, 2011, Defendant was 6 arraigned where he plead not guilty and demanded a jury trial. Super. Ct. of Guam Minute 7

8 Entry (Feb. 23, 2011). Defendant waived his right to a speedy trial pursuant to 8 G.C.A. §

9 80.60 and the 6th Amendment. Assertion or Waiver of Speedy Trial & Request for a Jury of 10 Twelve in Felony Case (Feb. 24, 2011). Defendant also requested ajury of twelve. Request for 11 Jury of Twelve (Mar. 3, 2011). 12 The Court scheduled trial settings on April 27, 2011, June 6, 2011, August 1,2011, and 13

14 September 12, 2011. On November 1,2011, the Court issued its Scheduling Order and set jury

15 selection and trial date for February 27, 2011. Scheduling Order (Nov. 4, 2011). A hearing on 16 all motions and pre-trial conference took place on February 20, 2012. Likewise, continued pre- 17 trial conferences were held on February 22,2012, and February 24, 2012. Defendant then filed 18

19 a motion to dismiss counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Second Charge and all counts of the Third Charge

20 of the indictment as beyond the statute oflimitations. The Court heard Defendant's motion on

21 February 27, 2012, and requested the Government to prepare the order to reflect the correct 22 charges. 23 Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence on February 28, 2012. A Notice of 24

25 Amended Motion to Suppress Evidence was filed with the Court on that same day. On March

26 1, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion in Limine re: 6 G.C.A. §401, §402, and §403. The People 27 filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements and Motion in Limine on 28

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafnas (CF062-11) Page 2 of 10 Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine March 7, 2012. The Court heard Defendant's motions on March 8, 2012, and now issues this 1

2 Decision and Order.

3 DISCUSSION 4 I. Motion to Suppress Evidence 5 Guam law provides that any defense, objection or request which is capable of 6 determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion. 7

8 Motions may be written or oral at the discretion of the judge. A motion to suppress evidence

9 shall be raised prior to trial. See 8 G.C.A. § 65.15 (c). 10 Defendant moves this Court to suppress statements given to police. Defendant contends 11 that he was transported in a police car and was not free to leave. Furthermore, Defendant argues 12 that he was questioned while in custody without being formally arrested and that officers 13

14 violated local statute for his detention in excess of fifteen (15) minutes during a routine traffic

15 stop. Defs Motion to Suppress Evidence at 4 (Feb. 28, 2012). Defendant argues that 16 statements taken in violation of his fourth amendment rights and violation of 8 G.C.A. § 30.20 17 should be suppressed. Defs Reply in Support of Motion to Suppress at 2 (Mar 8, 2012). 18

19 Correspondingly, the People filed an opposition arguing that Defendant "has not supplied any

20 rational legal basis for [his] motion." People's Opposition to Defs Motion to Suppress 21 Statements and Motion in Limine (Mar. 7,2012). 22 A. Defendant was not Arrested 23 An individual is in custody when he or she is 'taken into custody or otherwise deprived 24

25 of his freedom of action in any significant way.' People v. Muritok, 2003 Guam 21 ~ 12

26 (quoting Miranda v. Arizon~ 384 U.S. at 444). The United States Supreme Court set forth two 27 discrete inquiries to ascertain whether a person is in custody: 28

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafuas (CF062-11) Page 3 of 10 Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine The first inquiry is, "what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation." 1 The second inquiry is "given those circumstances, would a reasonable person 2 have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." After addressing the two inquiries, the court must then resolve the "ultimate 3 inquiry," which is "[was] there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." People v. Farata, 2007 4 Guam 8 ~23. 5 In addressing the first inquiry, Guam Police Department Officers J.1. Andrew and J.C 6

7 Mesa testified that while responding to a theft of property report on Chalan Fransico Juan Pere

8 Street in Yigo, they noticed a Black Toyota Corolla parked away from other vacant parking stall

9 at the Yigo MobillMcDonalds. Upon approaching the vehicle to identifY themselves, office 10 noticed two individuals in the back seat. They illuminated the back seat with their flashlight 11 and recognized a female not wearing any pants or panty. She was lying supine on the back sea 12

13 with her legs spread. Likewise, Defendant was not wearing any pants or underwear and he w

14 positioned between the female occupant's legs. Testimon of G.P.D. Officer J.c. Mesa 15 Transcript JDAASCRA (3/8/2012) at 2:54:56. Officers instructed Defendant and the othe 16 occupant to get dressed. Id. at 2:58:09. Thereafter, the officers asked for identification an 17 noticed that Defendant and the female occupant shared the same last name. Id. at 2:58:22. Th 18

19 female occupant acknowledged that Defendant was her dad. Testimon of G.P.D. Officer J.I

20 Andrew, Transcript JDAASCRA (3/8/2012) at 2:27:50. In light of this information, Officer J.C 21 Mesa testified that "at that time it was just an inquiry." Testimon of Officer J.C. Mes 22 Transcript JDAASCRA (3/8/2012) at 2:59:13. To follow up on their investigation, officer 23 asked Defendant and the occupant, identified as Kayla Mafnas, to go to the Dededo Precinc 24

25 Command. "We asked Felip (Defendant) if we could transport him to Dededo Precinct fo

26 further interview regarding this matter which he agreed to. We followed Kayla, who w 27 operating said Corolla, to DPC. We arrived at DPC at about 8:10." Defendant's Exhibit A P.8 28

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao MafDas (CF062-11) Page 40fIO Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine Defendant was transported to Dededo Precinct Command and was never handcuffed 1

2 The Fourth Amendment does not prevent a person from agreeing to accompany officers to th

3 police station and remain there for interrogation. See In re Gilbert R., 25 Cal.App.4th 1121 4 1126, Cal.Rptr.2d 676 (Cal. App. 1994) (no seizure where minor agreed to go to station fo 5 questioning). Hence, the argument that 8 G.C.A. § 80.20 was violated is moot, becaus 6 Defendant consented to accompany officers to the Dededo Precinct Command. A person rna 7

8 consent to move to a different location for investigative purposes. See U.S. v. Garcia-Torres, 1

9 Fed.Appx. 294 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that the defendant voluntarily consented to move fro 10 the initial investigative detention to a different location for further investigative purposes). Th 11 people must show, by a preponderance of the evidence through "clear and positive testimony,' 12 that any such consent was "unequivocally, specifically, and intelligently given, uncontaminate 13

14 by any duress and coercion." U.S. v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380,384 - 386 (6th Cir. 1999). In vie

15 of this, Defendant was never arrested between the time officers first came in contact with h' 16 and the time he was brought to the Dededo Precinct Command. 17 In considering the second inquiry as established in FaraY!, the Court reviews whether 18

19 Defendant would have felt he was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.

20 Defendant was free to leave between the time he was at the Dededo Precinct Command up to 21 9: 14 p.m. As noted above, Defendant volunteered to accompany officers to the Dededo 22 Precinct Command. "An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or submission to the 23 custody of the person making the arrest. The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint 24

25 as is reasonable for his arrest and detention." 8 G.C.A. § 20.10. "An arrest may also occur

26 despite the police having formally arrested the person or despite there being no physical 27 restraint. People of Guam v. Cundiff, 2006 Guam 12 ~ 21. "A person has been seized within the 28

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafnas (CF062-11) Page 5 of 10 Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the 1

2 incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." Id. (quoting

3 u.s. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980». The record is devoid of any indication that 4 Defendant was not free to leave. 5 "The test for custody is an objective one: whether a reasonable person in [the same 6 position would have understood himself to be subjected to the restraints comparable to thos 7

8 associated with a formal arrest." U.S. v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 671 (2d Cir. 2004). Defendan

9 failed to provide evidence to meet this test. There is no evidence of compulsion or curtailment 0 10 liberty. The Court concludes that officers requested Defendant to accompany them to th 11 Dededo Precinct Command and Defendant decided to accompany Officers Andrew and Mesa t 12 the Dededo Precinct. A reasonable person would not have believed that Defendant was neithe 13

14 free to leave. Therefore, Defendant was not arrested within the meaning of the Fourt

15 Amendment when he agreed to accompany Officers Andrew and Mesa to the Dededo Precinc 16 Command. 17 B. Custodial Interrogation 18 The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prohibits the prosecution 19

20 from using statements stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant, unless it

21 demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards to secure that privilege. Id. ~ 24. With the case 22 at bar, the record is devoid of any information provided by Defendant that statements were 23 given to police other than a written statement he produced after signing the Guam Police 24

25 Department's Custodial Interrogation Form. Custodial Interrogation Form, Exhibit 16 (3/8/12).

26 On that account, Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights and thus waived his 27 rights. Id. It was after 9: 14 p.m. that Defendant was under custodial interrogation. A Custodial 28

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafuas (CF062-11) Page 6 of IO Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine interrogation is defined as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has 1

2 been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way.

3 People v. Rasauo, 2011 Guam 1 ~ 25. The Court does not see any violation against Defendant's 4 rights because he signed the Custodial Interrogation Form before providing a written testimony. 5 Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements. 6

II. Motion Limine 7

8 Defendant also moves this Court in limine prior to the commencement of trial pursuant

9 to 6 G.C.A. §§ 401, 402, and 403 to prevent the introduction of his statement made to police on 10 or about February 4, 2011. Defendant requests "that the Court order the government not to 11 mention, refer to, or attempt to elicit in any manner, any opinions or conclusions regarding the 12 Defendant's written statement. The basis for this motion is that the statement is not relevant to 13

14 the charges that are now before the [C]ourt." Moreover, Defendant argues that the lack of

15 probative value of the statement is clearly outweighed by the prejudice the statement would 16 cause in the minds of the jury." Defs Motion in Limine re: 6 G.C.A. §§ 401, 402, 403 (Mar. 1, 17 2012). 18

19 The People oppose Defendant's Motion in Limine. People's Opposition to Defs

20 Motion to Suppress Statements and Motion in Limine (Mar. 7,2012). 21 Generally, evidentiary motions, such as motions in limine, are directed to the trial 22 court's discretion. People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368 (2004). Authority to grant or deny a 23 motion in limine rests in the inherent power of the court to admit or exclude evidence and to 24

25 take such precautions as are necessary to afford a fair trial for all parties. State v. Zakovi, 110

26 P. 3d 469,472 (2005). A motion in limine should be granted only when the trial court finds two 27 factors are present: (1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under 28

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafuas (CF062-11) Page 70flO Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer of evidence or statements made during the trial 1

2 concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury. Hersick v. State, 904 So.2d 116, 127

3 (Miss. 2004). 4 Defendant cites to 6 G.C.A. §§ 401, 402, and 403. 6 G.C.A. § 401 provides the 5 following: 6 "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence 7 of any fact that is of consequence to the determination for the action more 8 probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

9 6 G.C.A. § 401. 10 6 G.C.A. § 402 reads: 11 All relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by the 12 Constitution of the United States, by Act of the Guam Legislature, or by these Rules. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. 13

14 6 G.c.A. § 402. 1 15 In citing the above Rules, Defendant argues that the issue in this case is whether or not 16 he engaged in criminal sexual conduct, sexual penetration with a minor, at least fourteen (14) 17 but less than sixteen (16) years of age. Defendant further contends that he is "unaware of any 18

19 admissible evidence that [he] engaged in sexual intercourse with his daughter before her

20 sixteenth birthday." Defs Motion in Limine re: 6 GCA §§ 401. 402, 403 (Mar. 1,2012). 21 Guam law requires the People to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable 22 doubt. People v. Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ~ 12. In view of this, Guam Rules primarily defines 23 "relevant" for the purposes of admissibility at trial. People v. Orallo, 2004 Guam 5 ~ 18. In the 24

25 instant case, the Court determines that Defendant's written statement has a tendency to make the

26 1 The old rules of evidence were repealed by P.L. 28-138 on July 11, 2006. The 2006 Guam Rules of Evidence 27 were adopted by the Supreme Court of Guam in Promulgation Order No. 06-001 on January 6, 2006. Rule 402 of the GRE now reads: "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the 28 United States, by the Organic Act of Guam, by the laws of Guam, by these Rules or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is admissible."

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafuas (CF062-11) Page 8 of 10 Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine . existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination for the action more probable or 1

2 less probable than it would be without the evidence. At this stage, barring any law or rule to the

3 contrary, the Court concludes that Defendant's statement is relevant. Defendant will still have 4 an opportunity to make objections during the course of trial should this case proceed in that 5 fashion. 6 Lastly, Defendant cites to 6 G.c.A. § 403, relative to the exclusion of relevant evidence 7

8 on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time, which provides:

9 Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantial outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or 10 misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or 11 needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

12 6 G.C.A. § 403. 13 "Defendant submits that the use of defendant's statement is unduly prejudicial towards 14 the defendant." Defs Motion in Limine re: 6 GCA §§ 401, 402, 403 (Mar. 1,2012). Defendant 15 further argues that if the written statement is allowed to be used or referred to, the fact that the 16

17 defendant admitted to having sexual intercourse with Kayla in her senior year of high school

18 when she was 16 or 17, could lead to an improper decision of the jury based on their emotional 19 reaction of seeing that the defendant did in fact admit to engaging in incest. Id. 20 Unfair prejudice as used in the rule authorizing the exclusion of relevant evidence on the 21

22 grounds of unfair prejudice, is not satisfied by evidence that is merely adverse to the opposing th 23 party. Learmonth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 631 F.3d 724, 733 (5 Cir. 2011). In the instant 24 case, the Court concludes that Defendant was neither intoxicated nor impermissibly coerced by 25 threat into making his inculpatory statement to police officers. Defendant voluntarily provided 26 a written statement after acknowledging his understanding of his rights and there was no 27

28 indication that anyone would be improperly informed if he chose not to cooperate. See

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafuas (CF062-II) Page 9 of 10 Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine Custodial Interrogation Form, Exhibit 16 (3/8/2012). While Defendant rests his argument under 1

2 this rule on the basis of inflaming emotions of the jury, even assuming arguendo that Defendant

3 claimed that cumulative evidence under the rule would be meritiess, the rule does not prohibit 4 the introduction of cumulative evidence; rather it merely permits courts to exclude cumulative 5 evidence when it has little incremental value. U.S. v. Miguel, 87 Fed.Appx. 67 C.A.9 (Ariz) 6 2004. 7

8 Therefore, based on the following reasons, the Court denies Defendant's Motion in

9 Limine. 10 CONCLUSION 11 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court 12 DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements and Motion in Limine 13

l4 SO ORDERED this &~~ of Ar-Al, 2012.

15 This matter is set for a Pre-Trial Conference on April 16, 2012 at 2 p.m. 16

21 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22

23 I do hereby certify that the foregoing Is /I fuU true and correct copy of the orIgtnal on tile In the office of the 24 derk 01 the Superior Court of Guam

25 APR 09 2012 26

27 Aman:il.Qullorlano Deputy CIert. Supe/io( Coon of Guam 28

People of Guam v. Felip Tedtaotao Mafnas (CF062-11) Page 10 of 10 Decision and Order - Motion to Suppress & Motion in Limine