F e L go if#
I cuzas Q mum 2 Zii°Z51¥20'! *B la?-H1239 3 ,_,, "~.. -. e v S~U§~'I;¥l§§bR€3€;L'§is
4 ¢2zi$:?~¢x 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no.
NO.CF0390-23
CF0390-23
9 vs.
10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 JOHN JOSEPH MANIBUSAN aka UJ.J.
12 12 aka Kadi, 13 Defendant.
14 14
15 15 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
16 16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon Vernon P. Perez on October 30, 2024, for hearing
17 17 on Defendant JOI-IN JOSEPH MANIBUSAN aka UJ.J. aka Kadi's ("Defendant")
JOHN JOSEPH ("Defendant") Motion to
18 18 Sever Sever Charges.
Charges. Present
Presentwere
wereAssistant
AssistantAttorney
AttorneyGeneral
GeneralKathleen
KathleenO'Nei1
O'Neilon
on behalf
behalfof
of the People
19 19 of Guam and Defendant Defendant with
with counsel,
counsel, R.
R. Marsil
Marsil Johnson.
Johnson. Having
Having reviewed
reviewed the
the pleadings, the
20 20 arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision Decision and
and Order.
21 BACKGROUND
22 22 Defendant is
is charged
charged with
with (1)
(1) Burglary
Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony);
Felony); (2) Burglary to a
23 Motor Vehicle (As a Second Second Degree Felony); (3) Criminal Criminal Mischief
Mischief (As
(As aa Third
Third Degree Felony);
24 24 and (4) Theft Theft (As
(As aa Petty
PettyMisdemeanor).
Misdemeanor). (Indictment, Jun. 9, 2023).
2023). The
The First Charge of Burglary Burglary
25 25 (As aa Second Second Degree
Degree Felony)
Felony) stems
stems from
from allegations
allegations occurring
occurring on
on or
or about
about December 8, 2020
26 26 against Islae V e Clinic.
Vet C l i n i c . Id The Second Charge of of Burglary to a Motor Vehicle (As a Second
27 27 Degree Felony), Third Charge of Criminal Mischief Mischief (As
(As aa Third
Third Degree
Degree Felony),
Felony), and
and Fourth
Fourth
28 28
People v.
v. Manibusan
Case No.
No. CF0390-23
CF0390-23
Decision Decision and Order
Page 11 of
ofS5
1 Charge Charge of Theft Theft (As
(Asa aPetty
PettyMisdemeanor),
Misdemeanor),stem
stemfrom
fromallegations
allegations occurring
occumng on
on or
or about
about·
2 November November 4, 4, 2020
2020 againstShirley Antolin. Id Shirley Antolin.
3 On October 2, 2024, Defendant filed 2024, Defendant filed the instant instantMotion,
Motion, moving the Court to sever the
4 First Charge from from the
the Second,
Second, Third,
Third, and
and Fourth Charges. Defendant moves Charges. Defendant moves the the Court
Court to
to sever
5 the December 8, 2020 charge charge from the November
November 4,
4, 2020
2020 charges
charges because
because they are
are improperly
6 joined and joined he will and he will be
be prejudiced
prejudiced by theirjoinder trial.11 See their joinderatattriaL generally, Mot.
See generally, Oct. 2, Sever, Oct.
Mot. Sever, 2, 2024.
2024.
7 On October October 14, 14, 2024, the Government filed 2024, the filed its its Opposition,
Opposition, arguing
arguing that
that the charges are
are properly
8 8 joined and that that even
even if
if they were severed,
severed, evidence
evidence of
ofthe
the charges
charges would
would be
be admissible
admissible in
in each
each
9 trial under underGRE
GRE 404(b).
404(b). See generally, Opp'n, Opp'n, Oct.
Oct. 14,
14, 2024.
2024. On
On October
October 16,
16, 2024,
2024, Defendant
10 10 filed filed his Reply.
Reply.
11 11 On October October 30,
30, 2024,
2024, the Court heard arguments on the arguments on the Motion
Motion and
and subsequently
subsequently placed
12 the matter under under advisement.
advisement.
13 13 DISCUSSION 14 14 Under Guam Guam law,
law, two or more offenses may may be charged
charged in the same indictment"if same indictment "if the
15 15 ·offenses charged 'offenses charged are ofthe are of same or
thesame orsimilar
similarcharacter
character or
orbased
based on
on the
the same
same act
act or
or transaction
transaction or
16 16 on two or or more
more acts
acts or
or transactions connected together or or constituting parts of a common scheme 17 17 or plan." 88 G.C.A.
or plan." G.C.A. §§55.352 55.35. 2 Severance
Severancemay
maybe
be appropriate, however:
appropriate, however:
18 18 If If itit appears
appears that
that a defendant or the
defendant or the government governmentisis prejudiced prejudicedby byaajoinder jointer of
offenses or of ofdefendants defendants in an indictment indictment or or information informationor orby
by such
suchjoinder
jointer for
19 19 trial together, the court may order an election election or
or separate
separate trials of
ofcounts,
counts, grant
grant a
20 20 severance severance of of defendants orprovide defendants or provide whatever whateverother
otherrelief
reliefjustice requires.
21
11 The TheCoM Courtnotes
notesthat
thatwhile
whilethe
theMotion
Motioninitially
initiallymoves
movesthethe Court
Courttoto "sever
"severthe
the counts
counts and
and charges
charges and
and order
order separate
22 trials for trials for each each separate
separate charge
charge and
and count
count of
of the
the Indictment,"
Indictment," see
see Mot.
Mot. Sever at
at 5,
5, Defendant's
Defendant's Reply "requests the 23 Court Court to sever sever the counts arising from the November November 4, 4, 2020
2020 incident
incident (Counts
(Counts 2,
2, 3, and 4) from the sole count arising from the Decemper December 8, 2020
2020 incident
incident (Count
(Count 1)."
l)." (Reply
(Reply at 5).
24 2 2 Section Section 55.35 55.35 is substantially the same as Rule 8 of the Federal Federal Rules
Rules of
of Criminal
Criminal Procedure,
Procedure, which
which provides:
provides:
25 (a)
(a) Joiner
Joinder of
ofOffenses. The indictment Offenses. The indictment or or information
information may
may charge
charge aa defendant
defendant in
in separate
separate counts
counts
with 2 or more offenses if the the offenses
offenses charged
charged -- whether felonies f~lonies or misdemeanors
misdemeanors or or both
both -- are
26 of the same or of similar
or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts
parts of
of aa common
common scheme or plan. '
27 Fed. R. Crim. P.
P. 8.
8. Accordingly,
Accordingly,federal
federal law
law interpreting
interpreting Rule
Rule 88 (and
(and Rule 14)
14) below is persuasive. See Sum Sumitomo
28 Constr. Co. v.
v. Zhang Ye, Inc.,
Inc., 1997 Guam ,r
Guam 88 117.
People v.
v. Manibusan
Manibusan
Case No.
No. CF0390-23
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 2 of5
of
1 8 G.c.A. §§ 65.352 8 G.C.A. 65.35. 3 2 To determine whether offenses are properly joined, courts traditionally traditionally consider "whether "whether
3 the charges the charges are are laid under
under the
the same
samestatute,
statute,whether
whetherthey
theyinvolve
involve similar
similar victims,
victims, locations,
locations, or
4 modes of of operation,
operation, and
and the time frame in
in which
which the
the charged
charged conduct occurred."
occurred." United
United States
States
5 v.
v. Taylor, Taylor, 54 F.3d F.3d 967,
967,973
973(1st
(let Cir.
Cir. 1995)
l995) (citations omitted). "[T]he (citations omitted). "[T]heprimary primary purpose
purpose of Rule
6 8(a) jointer is 8(a) joinder to ensure is to ensure that
that aa given
given transaction
transactionneed
needonly
onlybebeproved
provedonce
once....
.... Where
Where there
there is
7 substantial overlapininevidence substantial overlap evidencebetween betweentwo
two offenses,
offenses,joinder
jointer eliminates the need eliminates the need to
to prove
8 substantially thesame substantially the sameevidence evidencetwice
twice over,
over, thus
thus realizing
realizing precisely
precisely the
the kind
land of economy
economy
9 envisaged by by Rule
Rule 8(a)."
8(a)." Howerton
Howerton v. Unitea'States, United 964 A.2d
A.2d 1282, 1292(D.C.
1282, 1292 (D.C. 2009)
2009) (citations,
(citations,
10 10 internal quotation marks, marks, and
andalterations
alterationsomitted).
omitted). See
See also United
United States v. Terry, 911 911 F.2d 272,
11 11 276 276 (9th Cir.
Cir. 1990)
1990) ("When
("When ...
.. joined
joinedoffenses
offensesare
arenot
notconnected
connected and
and are
are not provable by the
12 same evidence, jointer is improper.").
same evidence,joinder improper."). Rule Rule 8(a) is
is "construed broadly
broadlyin
infavor
favorofinitialjoinder."
of initial jointer."
13 13 United United States States v. Walker,
Walser, 33 F.3d 380,
380, 385
385(11th
(nth Cir.
Cir. 1993)
1993) (citation
(citation omitted). See also United See also
14 14 States v.v. Boulanger, Boulanger, 444 F.3d 76,
76, 87
87 (1st
(let Cir. 2006)
2006) (construing Rule 8(a) generously in 8(a) generously in favor favor of
of
15 15 jointer).
joinder).
16 In this this case,
case, the
the Government
Government argues
argues that
that the charges
charges are
are properly joined
joined because
because the
17 17 "statutes relating relating to the
the different incidents are are both
both theft
theft related
relatedburglaries";
burglaries", "Defendant targeted
18 18 medical businesses medical for both businesses for both burglaries"
burglaries" because
because"one
"one incident
incident occurred
occurred at
at aa vet
vet clinic and
and the
19 19 other burglary burglary occurred
occurredto
to aavehicle
vehicle in the
the parking
parkinglot
lot of
of Renal Care",
Care"; and
and the "crimes occurred
20 20 about aa month about apart." (Opp'n monthapart." (Opp'n at
at 1-2).
1-2). Thus,
Thus,the
theGovernment
Governmentappears
appears to
to be
be arguing
arguing that
that the
the
21
22 33 Section Section65.35 65 .3 5isissubstantially
substantially similar
similar to
to Rule 14
14 of
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
23 jointer of If the joinder ofoffenses offenses or
or defendants
defendants in
in an
an indictment,
indictment, an information, or or a consolidation consolidation for trial
appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order order separate separate trials of counts, 24 sever the defendants' trials, or provide any other other relief
relief that justice requires.
25 Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a).
14(a). Thus,
Thus, even
even if if offenses
offenses are
are properly joined, a court may grant grant severance
severance ofof the offenses offenses if
if the
defendant defendant is prejudiced byby suchjoinder.
jointer. "The
"Theprime
primeconsideration
considerationin
in determining
determining whether
whether or
or not
not to grant a severance
26 is the possibility possibility of
of prejudice
prejudice toto the
the defendant
defendant in in conducting conducting his
his defense.
defense. Weighing the danger of confusion and Undue undue cumulative inference inference is a matter for the trial trial judge
judge within
within his
his sound
sound discretion."
discretion." Johnson v. United States, 356 356 27 F.2d 680, 682 (Sth (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 857 (1966).
cert. denied, (1966). "It "It is
is not enough simply to show that suchjoinder such jointer
28 more difficult makes it more difficulttotodefend."
defend." Id.Id (citations (citations omitted).
People People v. Man ibusan Manibusan
Case No. CF0390-23 Case No. Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 ofS
charges are properly charges are properlyjoined joined because
becausethey
theyare
areof
ofthe
the"same
"sameor
or similar
similarcharacter." 4 Accordingly, character."4
1 Accordingly, 2 "factors such the Court considers "factors asthe such as theelements
elementsof
of the
thestatutory
statutoryoffenses,
offenses, the
thetemporal
temporalproximity
proximity
3 of ofthe the acts, the the likelihood
likelihood and extent of evidentiary overlap, the physical location location of
ofthe
the acts,
acts, the
4 modus operandiof modus operandi of the thecrimes,
crimes,and
andthe
theidentity
identityof
ofthe
thevictims."
victims." United
United States
States v. Jawara,
Jawara, 474 F.3d
5 565, 578 (9th 565, 578 (9thCir.
Cir. 2007).
2007). "The
"The weight
weightgiven
giventotoaaparticular
particular factor
factor will
will depend
depend on
on the specific
6 context of the case case and
andthe
theallegations
allegationsininthe
theindictment."
indictment." Id
Id
7 In In applying this
this inquiry, the
the Court finds that the
the First
First Charge
Charge is
is not
notof
of the
the "same
"same or similar
8 character character"_as as the
the Second,
Second, Third,
Third, and
and Fourth Charges
Charges in
in the
theIndictment.
Indictment. The Court acknowledges
9 that the the incidents
incidentsalleged
alleged occurred
occurredroughly
roughly one
onemonth
monthfrom
fromeach
eachother.
other. This
This fact,
fact, however, does
10 10 not mean mean it is likely that
that any
any evidence of
ofthe
the November
November4,
4, 2020
2020 incident
incident overlapped
overlapped with the
111 1 December 8, 2020 incident. 55 The Court December Court also also acknowledges
acknowledges that
that both
both the
the December
December 8,
8, 2020
2020 and
and
12 12 November 4, 2020 incident incident involve
involve the
the charge
charge of
of Burglary.
Burglary. However,
However, the
the December
December 8,
8, 2020
2020
13 13 charge charge of Burglary Burglary involves
involves allegations
allegations that
that Defendant
Defendant entered a clinic, whereas the November whereas the November
14 4, 2020 charge of 2020 charge of Burglary involves involves allegations
allegations that
that Defendant entered
entered an
anindividual's
individual's vehicle,
vehicle,
15 15 to which which he also damaged.
damaged. While
Whileboth
boththe
theDecember
December8,8,2020
2020 and
and November
November 4,
4, 2020
2020 incidents
incidents
16 16 occurred on Guam, Guam, the
theNovember
November 4,
4, 2020
2020incident
incidenttook
tookplace
placeon
onNCS
NCS Road in Dededo between
17 17 12:00 p.m.
p.m. and 6:00
6:00 p.m:
p.m1while
whilethe
theDecember
December 8,
8, 2020
2020 incident
incident took place in
in Asan
Asan around
around 12:30
12:30
18 18 a.m. See a.m. See Reply at 3.
Replyat Further,the
3. Further, the December December8,
8, 2020
2020 incident
incident is
is alleged
alleged to
to have
have been
been carried
carried out
out
19 19 by Defendant Defendant and co-actor, whereas and a co-actor, whereas the the November
November 4,
4, 2020
2020 incident
incident is
is alleged to have been
20 20
21
22 4 "Rule 8(a) "Rule 8(a) provides
provides for
for jointer
joinderofofoffenses
offensesagainst
againstaa single defendant in single defendant in the indictment if the indictment if one of three one of conditions
three conditions
23 Theoffenses
is satisfied. The offensescharged chargedmust
must be:
be: (1)
(1) "of
"ofthe
the same or similar
same or similar character,"
character;" (2)
(2) "based
"based on
on the
the same
same act
act or
or
24 transaction;" or transaction," or (3)
(3) "connected
"connected with
with or
or constituting
constituting parts
partsof
ofaacommon
commonscheme
schemeororplan."
plan." United
United States
States v.v. Jawara,
Jawara,
F.3d 565, 574 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 474 F.3d (citing Fed.
Fed. R.
R. Crum.
Crim. P.
P. 8(a)). TheGovernment
8(a)). The Governmenthas hasnot
notset
set forth
forth that
that the
the charges
charges
25 are "based on the the same
same act
act or
or transaction"
transaction" or
or part
part of "common scheme of aa "common scheme or
or plan"
plan" as
as the
the commission
commission of
of one
one of
of the
the
did not depend on or lead to offenses did to the the commission
commission of the
the other.
other. See
See id.
id at
at 574
574 (citation omitted).
omitted).
26 26 5 The 5 The Court Court declines to
to address
addressthe
theissue
issueofGRE 404(b) evidence at ofGRE 404(b) at this thistime.
time.See
SeeOpp'n
Opp'natat33("[T]he
("[T]he People
People believe
believe
27 that the that the evidence evidence mentioned above would would be
be admissible under either admissible under either the intent, knowledge, the intent, knowledge, or or absence
absence of
of mistake
mistake
purposes allowable under GRE Rule under GRE Rule 404(b).").
404(b).").Parties
Partiesmay
mayfurther
furtherbrief theissue
briefthe issue should
should any
any of
of the charges proceed
the charges proceed
28 to trial.
trial.
People People v. Manibusan v. Manibusan
Case No.
No. CF0390-23
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 4 of5 carried out by Defendant alone. 6 Accordingly, the Court finds that the First Charge is improperly 2 joined with the Second, Third, and Fourth Charges and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Sever 3 Charges. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Sever 6 Charges. The First Charge of Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony) will be severed from the 7 remaining charges for trial. Parties shall return for a Status Hearing on November 7, 2024 at 9:00 8 a.m. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED this {Q"\¼ day of November, 2024.
10
11
12
13 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 SERVICE VIA EMAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 22 cop~ j)f the originaLwas e,.maiJed-tO:
23 a. MA.fi l ~._,~fol', M.i;
24
_25
26
27 6 The Fifth Charge of the Indictment charges Co-Defendant Peter David Tedtaotao Ogo with Burglary (As a Second Degree Felony) against Isla Vet Clinic on or about December 8, 2020. (Indictment, Jun. 9, 2023). Co-Defendant 28 Ogo is not charged with any other crimes in the Indictment. See id.
People v. Manibusan Case No. CF0390-23 Decision and Order
Page 5 of5