People v. Maka

Opinion

l §§L5

*.'li.E& :K OFF ;8§*;": I 2 2025 MAY 2323AM ZQ25%%&Y AH10:

I{3=58

58

3 w:) §GR C~*;§3. i;\¢r 4 G? GL

5

6 6 [N IN THE

THE SUPERIOR

SUPERIOR COURT

COURT OF GUAM

7

8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE

CASE NO.

no. CM0042-20

CM0042-20

9

vs.

10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 WILLIAM PAUL MAKA, 12 12

Defendant.

13

14 INTRODUCTION

RODUC TI

15 15 This matter is before the Honorable Honorable Vernon

Vernon P.

P. Perez

Perez on

onDefendant

DefendantWilliam

William Paul

Paul Maka's

16 16 ("Defendant") Motion ("Defendant") Motionto to Dismiss

Dismiss Based on De

De Minimis Statute ("Moton Minims Statute ("Moton to to Dismiss"),

Dismiss"), filed

filed April

April

17 17 2025. Defendant

25, 2025. Defendant is represented by Assistant Public Defender Jocelyn M.

M. Roden.

Roden. The People

18 of Guam Guam ("the ("the Government")

Government") are

are represented

represented by Assistant

Assistant Attorney

Attorney General

General Dante

Dante CH

CH

,19 Harootunian. Having Having reviewed

reviewedthe

the pleadings,

pleadings,the

thearguments

argumentspresented,

presented, and

and the

the record,

record, the Court

20 20 now issues the following Decision and Order.

21 BACKGROUND

22 Defendant is charged with one count of Family Violence (As aa Misdemeanor)

Misdemeanor) and one

23 count of Assault (As (As aa Misdemeanor).

Misdemeanor). (Magistrate's (Magistrate's Con pl., Jan. 23, 2020).

Compl., 2020). These charges stem 24 from allegations allegations that

that Defendant

Defendant was yelling,

yelling, throwing

throwing pots

pots and pans, and when his uncle, Andrew 25 H. Pangelinan, walked away to avoid argument, Defendant struck struck his

his face causing his nose to 26 bleed. (Decl.

(Deel. of Brendlynn O.

ofBrendlynn 0. Joseph,

Joseph, Magistrate's Con

Compl., Jan. 23,

23, 2020).

2020). Officers responding 27

28

People v. Maker People v. Maka Case No. CM0042-20 Case No. CM0042-20 Decision Decision and and Order

Page Page l1 of 1 to the scene observed swelling, redness, redness, and a bump

bump on

on the

the left

left side

side of

of Mr.

MI. Pangelinan's

Pangelinan's face, as

2 well as redness to the area around around his

his nose

nose with

with suspected

suspected dried

dried blood

bloodon

onthe

thenostril

nostrilarea.

area. Id.

Id

3 On August 6, 2021, 2021, Defendant

Defendant filed

filed aa Motion

Motion for

for Civil

Civil Compromise.

Compromise. The Court denied

4 the Motion, finding the Motion, finding that "civil "civil compromise

compromise of family

family violence

violence matters

matters does

does not

not present

present

5 'circumstances such that 'circumstances such that through through private

private settlement

settlementthe

thepublic

publicisisfully

fullyvindicated."'

vindicated."' (Dec. &

6 Order at 3, 3, Oct.

Oct. 15,

15, 2021).

2021). The

The case

case did

did not

not proceed

proceed to

to trial, however, as Defendant became the 7 subject et of

of two Bench

Bench Warrants. See

See Bench

BenchWarrant,

Warrant, Dec.

Dec. 7,

7, 2021

2021 (ROW

(ROW Service

Service 09/21/2022) &

8 Bench Warrant, Feb. 13, 2023 (ROW Service 04/14/2025).

9 Jury Selection and Trial is currently set set for

for August 13,

13, 2025. . See

See Second Am. Criminal

10 Trial Scheduling Scheduling Order,

Order, Apr. 22, 2025.

11 On April 24, 2025, 2025, Defendant

Defendant filed

filed the

the instant

instant Motion.

Motion. On May 7,

7, 2025, the Government

12 filed its Opposition.

filed its Opposition. No No Reply

Reply was

was filed.

filed. The

TheCourt

Courtsubsequently

subsequently placed

placed the

the matter

matter under

under

13 advisement on the advisement on the briefs.

briefs. See

See CRl.1

CRl.l Form

Form 3, May 19, 2025.

'14 DISCUSSION 15 Under Guam law:

16 16 The court shall dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature ofof the the attendant

attendant circumstances,

circumstances, it

17 17 finds that the defendant's conduct:

18 18 (a) Was within aa customary customary license

license or

or tolerance,

tolerance, neither expressly 19 19 negated by the person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent 20 with the purpose of the law defining the offense;

offense,

20

21 (b) Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining defining the

the offense

offense or

or did so only to an extent 22 too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or 23 (c)

c) Presents

Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably extenuations that reasonably be 24 regarded as as envisaged by the Legislature in forbidding the offense.

The court

court shall not

not dismiss

dismiss aa prosecution

prosecution under

under this

this Subsection

Subsection

25 25 without filing aa written statement ofof its reasons.

26 26 99 G.C.A.

G.C.A. §§ 7.67.

7.67. Section

Section 7.67

7.67 "directs

"directs the

the trial

trial court

court to

to dismiss

dismiss aa prosecution

prosecution if

ifit finds

finds that

that the

the

27 defendant's conduct falls within at least one of of three distinct circumstances." People v. Perez, 28

People Peoplev.v. Maker Maka

Case No.

No. CM0042-20

Decision Decision and and Order

Page 22 ofS

off

1 2004 Guam 44 ,r119 (emphasisininoriginal).

9 ( emphasis original). The The "statute

"statute recognizes that it would would be unrealistic to

2 believe that judges never that judges never enter

enter aa finding

finding of

of not guilty

guilty even

even though

though guilt is proven

proven where

where aa

3 conviction conviction is is considered

considered to

to be

beinappropriate,

inappropriate, and

and therefore authorizes the trial authorizes the trial court court to

to mitigate

4 the general provisions the general provisions of the criminal law to prevent absurd applications." Id absurd applications." ,r (quoting 9 Id atat1110

5 G.C.A.

G.C.A.§§7.67 7.67commentary).

commentary).Defendant

Defendantargues

arguesthat

thatthis

thismatter

mattershould

shouldbe

be dismissed

dismissedpursuant to 9

pursuant to 9

6 G.C.A.

G.C.A. §§ 7.67(b).

7.67(b). See

See generally, Mot. Dismiss.

Dismiss.

7 Section 7.67 Section is modeled

7.67 is modeled after

after Model

Model Penal

Penal Code

Code§§2.2.12,

12, which

which has been adopted

has been adoptedby

by New

New

8 Jersey, Maine, Jersey, Maine, Hawaii, and and Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania. Id

Id at ,r 11;

at 11 ll, fn.

fn. 3. In

InPeople

Peoplev.v. Perez,

Perez, the

the Supreme

9 Court of of Guam looked to case law from Guam looked from New NewJersey

Jersey for

for guidance

guidance in

in evaluating

evaluating aa motion

motion to dismiss

10 10 pursuant pursuant toto99G.C.A.

G.C.A.§§7.67, citing

citingState

State v. Zarrilli, 523 A.2d 284 284 (N.J.

(NJ. Super. Ct.Law

Super. Ct. Law Div.

Div. 1987),

11 aff'a', aff'd, 532 A.2d 1131 Super.Ct.

1131 (N.J. Super. Ct.App.

App. Div.

Div. 1987).

1987). Id. at ,r 11.ll. The at 11 The Zarrilli Zarrilli court

court stated that

12 "[t]he "[t]heone one question

question to

to be asked andanswered

asked and answeredininresponse responsetotoa adedeminimis minimsmotion

motionisis...

... What is

13 13 the risk the risk of of harm

harmto

towhich

whichsociety

societyisisexposed

exposedby

bydefendant's

defendant'sconduct?"

conduct?" The Zarrilli court then set

14 forth five five factors

factors relevant

relevantininevaluating

evaluatingthis

thisquestion:

question: (1)

(1)the

thecircumstances

circumstances surrounding surrounding the

the

15 15 commission commission of ofthe

the offense,

offense; (2)

(2)the

theexistence

existenceof

ofcontraband,

contraband; (3)

(3)the

theamount

amount and

and value of property

16 16 involved, (4)the involved; (4) the use use or

or threat of violence,

threat of violence; and

and (5)

(5) the

the use

use of weapons. Zarrilli, 523 A.2d A.2d at

at 288.

17 17 For For purposes

purposes of this motion, the Court assumes astrue assumes as the all the

the factual

factual allegations

allegations against

against

18 18 Defendant.

Defendant. See See Perez, 2004Guam ,r 16 ((quoting Guam 41116 quoting Zarrilli, 523 A.2d A.2d at 286) ("it

("itmust

must be

be assumed

assumed

19 19 that the that the conduct conductcharged

chargedactually

actuallyoccurred'

occurred'because

because'[t]he

'[t]he motion

motion does

does not

not provide

provide a setting

setting for

20 20 a determination determinationof ofguilt

guiltor

orinnocence."').

innocence."'). The

TheDeclaration

Declarationattached

attached to

to the Magistrate's Complaint 21 sets forth forth the

thefollowing:

following:

22 On or or about about January 21, 2020 January 21, 2020 at at or about about 6:15

6:15 p.m.,

p.m., GPD Officers

Officers

responded responded toto aa complaint complaintatatresidence

residenceininDededo.

Dededo.Arrival

Arrival at that

thatlocation,

location,Officer

Officer

23 Oliva Oliva met

met with

with Andrew Hansek Pangelinan Pangelinan (Victim,

(Victim,"Mr.

"Mr. Pangelinan"), who

24 reported that earlier earlier at

at or

or about

about 55:35

:35 p.m.,

p.rn., same

same date

date at

at his residence,

residence, his nephew

25 WILLIAM PAUL WILLIAM PAULMAKAMAKA("Defendant")

("Defendant") started yelling and started yelling and throwing pots pots and

and

pans. pans. Mr.

Mr. Pangelinan

Pangelinan explained

explained that

that he

he walked

walked away

away avoiding

avoidingargument

argument and

and the

26 26 Defendant struck his face and his nose causing causing nosebleed.

27

28

People People v.v. Maker Maka

Case No. CM0042-20 Case No. CM0042-20 Decision Decision andand Order

Page Page 3 of5

Officer Officer Oliver conducted injury Oliva conducted injury check check of

of Mr.

Mr. Pangelinan

Pangelinan and

and noted

noted swelling,

swelling,

1 redness, and bump on

on the left of his face and redness to his nose area with dry left side of

2 2 blood on suspected blood on the

the nostril

nostril area.

3 3 The Defendant stated that he did assault his uncle.

Defendant stated

4 (Decl.

(Deel. of of Brendlynn

Brendlynn O.

0. Joseph,

Joseph, Magistrate's

Magistrate's Con pl., Jan.

Compl., Jan. 23,

23, 2020).

2020). Although Although there

there is no

5 5 allegation of the existence of of contraband during this incident or the use of weapons and there is 6 6 no allegation of property property damage, the Court is concerned about the use or threat of of violence:

7 7 Defendant allegedly struck the victim's face face and nose causing

causing swelling, redness and a bump to 8 8 the the side side of the victim's face nosebleed. The face and a nosebleed. The fact fact that

that the

the victim

victim did

did not

not want

want medical

medical

9 9 treatment after treatment the incident after the incident isis not not dispositive

dispositiveon

on its

its own. As the

own. As the Government

Government sets

sets forth

forth in its

its

10 Io Opposition, "the Opposition, "the punches punches did

did draw

draw blood

blood and any closed fist blow to the head head creates

creates some

11 inherent risk risk of

of serious

serious injury." at 3). These injury." (Opp'n at These facts facts set

set forth

forth what the law seeks

seeks to be

12 12 preventedprevented bodily injury - bodily injury to a family or household household member. Defendant Defendantindicates

indicates that

that both he and

13 13 the conflicting statements the alleged victim gave conflicting statements (each (each claiming

claiming the other struck him) and and that

that

14 14 because because it is is unclear

unclear who

who the initial aggressor aggressor was,

was, there

there isis no

no harm

harm to

to which society

society may be

15 15 exposed. (Mot. Dismiss (Mot. Dismiss at 3).

3). The Court

Court notes,

notes, however,

however, that

that the facts set forth

the facts forth in the the

16 16 Complaint only Magistrate's Complaint only include include the

the statement

statement that

that "the

"the Defendant

Defendant stated

stated that

that he did

did assault

assault

17 17 his uncle." (Decl.

(Deel. of

ofBrendlynn 0. Joseph,

Brendlynn O. Joseph, Magistrate's Magistrate's Con

Compl., Jan. 23, 2020).

pl., Jan. 2020). The Court finds 18 18 that any dispute dispute about

about who

who was the

the initial

initial aggressor

aggressor and

and what

what Defendant

Defendant was

was intending

intending when

when he

19 19 started throwing started pots and throwing pots panel1 should and pans should be

be for

for the

the trier

trier of

of fact

fact to

to determine. Therefore, upon determine. Therefore,

20 20 review Zarrilli fa of the Zarrilli

eview of ctor s, the factors, the Cour

Courtt finds

finds dismissa

dismissall pursuant

pur sua nt to

to 99 G.C.A.

G.C.A. §§ 7.67(b)

7.67(b)

21 21 inappropriate and inappropriate and denies denies Defendant's

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

22 22 II// 23 23 II// 24 24 II// 25 II// 26 26

27 1 1 In his Motion, Defendant sets Motion, Defendant sets forth that that "both

"both Defendant

Defendant and

and alleged

alleged victim

victim were drinking beer when Defendant started throwing started throwing pots pots and

andpans

pans- -not

notatatalleged

allegedvictim,

victim,but

butdue

duetotosome

somefood

foodbeing

being stolen.

stolen. Both

Both were interviewed

28 28 conflicting statements

and gave conflicting statements -- each claiming that the the other

otherstruck

struckhim."

him." (Mot.

(Mot. Dismiss at

at 3).

People v.v. Maker People Maka Case No.

No. CM0042-20

Decision and Decision and Order

Page Page 4 of 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the For the foregoing

foregoing reasons,

reasons, the

the Court

Court hereby

hereby DENIES

DENIES Defendant's

Defendant's Motion

Motion to

to Dismiss

Dismiss

3 Based on Based De Minims on De MinimisStatute.

Statute.Parties

Partiesshall

shallreturn

returnfor

foraaStatus

Status Hearing

Hearingon

onJune

June 9,

9, 2025

2025 at

at 10:00

10:00

4 a.m.

a.m. .\

5 IT IS SO ORDERED

ORDEREDthis

this 15

2.~1ay

day of May,

May, 2025

2025.

6

7

8 HONORABLE VERNONVERNQN P. p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 9

10

II 11

12 12

13

14 14

15 15

16

17 17

18 18

19

20 20

21

22

23 23

24

25

26 26

27

28

People v.

v. Maker

Maka

Case No. CM0042-20 Decision and Order

Page 5 of