IN THE SUPERlOR COURT OF GUAM
PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff,
6 vs. DECISION AND ORDER:
MOTION FOR A NE\V TRIAL & 7 MOTION TO REDUCE CONVICTIONS DAVID Q. MANILA AND ANTHONY T. AS TO FIRST TWO CHARGES TO 8 QUENGA, SECOND DEGREE FELONIES 9 Defendants. 10
11 INTRODUCTION
12 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on November 22, 2013, on 13
14 David Q. Manila's and Anthony T. Quenga's ("Defendant Manila" & "Defendant Quenga"
15 respectively) Motion for New Trial and Motion to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges 16 to Second Degree Felonies. Defendant Manila was represented by Attorney Terence E.
17 Timblin. Defendant Quenga was represented by Attorney Sylvia L.G. Stake. The People of 18 Guam ("the People") were represented by Assistant Attorney General Christopher R. Odoca.
19
20 Following the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of the oral
21 and written arguments, and legal authorities presented by the parties, the Court issues its 22 Decision and Order DENYING Defendants' motions.
23 BACKGROUND
24 Defendants were initially indicted by a Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury on 25
26 November 16,2012. A Second Superseding Indictment was returned on Friday, November 23,
27 2012. On March 15, 2013, a Third Superseding Indictment was charged out against both
28 Page I 1 v. Manila & Quenga (CF20 08)
Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as First Two Charges to Second
Defendants. Finally, on July 31, 201 a Fourth Superseding Indictment was returned.
Degree Felony) (9 counts); Kidnapping (as a 1st Degree Felony) (9 counts); (3) Conspiracy
to Commit Felonious Restraint (as a Degree Felony) (9 counts); (4) Felonious Restraint (as a
3rd Degree Felony) (9 counts); (5) Conspiracy to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony)
6
(9 counts); (6) Compelling Prostitution (as a Degree Felony) (9 counts); (7) Conspiracy to 7
8 Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (10 counts); (8) Promoting Prostitution (as a 3rd
9 Degree Felony) (1 0 counts); (9) First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony) 10 (2 counts); (10) Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony) (2 counts);
11 (11) Criminal Intimidation (as a Misdemeanor); and (12) Official Misconduct (as a 12
13 Misdemeanor). Fourth Superseding Indictment (Jul. 31, 2013).
14 The Fourth Superseding Indictment charges Defendant Quenga as follows: (1)
15 Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping (as a 1st Degree Felony) (9 counts); (2) Kidnapping (as a 1st 16 Degree Felony) (9 counts); (3) Conspiracy to Commit Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd Degree 17 Felony) (9 counts); (4) Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (9 counts); (5) Conspiracy 18
19 to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (9 counts); (6) Compelling Prostitution (as a 3rd
Degree Felony) (9 counts); (7) Conspiracy to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (10 21 counts); (8) Promoting Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (10 counts); (9) First Degree 22 Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony); (10) Second Degree Criminal Sexual 23 Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony) (2 counts); (11) Attempted First Degree Criminal Sexual 24
25 Conduct (as a 151 Degree Felony); (12) Attempted Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as
26
28 Page I v. Manila & Quenga (CF20 08)
Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second a 151 Degree Felony); (1 Criminal Intimidation (as a Misdemeanor); and (14) Of1icial
Misconduct (as a Misdemeanor).
3 Jury selection and trial commenced for Defendants Manila and Quenga on July 4 2013. After weeks of trial, a jury of twelve returned verdicts on September 1 2013.
The jury found both Defendants guilty of most of the charges and counts as contained the
Fourth Superseding Indictment.
7
8 Defendant Quenga filed a Motion for New Trial on October 8, 2013. Defendant Manila
9 joined in on the motion. See Def. Manila's Joinder (Oct. 10, 2013). On October 9, 2013, 10 Defendant Manila filed a Motion to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second 11 Degree Felonies. Defendant Quenga also joined in on the motion. See Joinder by Def.
12
13 Anthony Quenga (Oct. 14, 2013). The People filed their opposition to Defendants' Motion for
14 New Trial on October 31,2013. Likewise, on November 6, 2013, the People filed an amended 15 opposition. Similarly, the People filed their opposition on November 8, 2013 to Defendants'
16 Motion to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second Degree Felonies. The Court 17 heard both matters on November 22, 2013 and now issues its Decision.
18
19 DISCUSSION
20 Motion for New Trial
21 Guam law provides the following grounds for granting a new criminal trial:
22 (a) The court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to him if required in the interests of justice.
23 (b) If the trial was by the court without a jury the court on motion of a defendant 24 for a new trial may vacate the judgment if entered, take additional testimony and direct the entry of a new judgment.
25 (c) A motion for a new trial based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two (2) years after final judgment, but if 26 an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand a [sic] of the case.
8 Page I 3 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20 08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
(d) A motion for a new trial based on any ground other than ground of discovered evidence shall be made within seven (7) days after verdict or finding of guilty or within such further time as the court may fix during the seven-day period.
8 GCA § 110.30 (2005).
"The trial court's discretion to a new trial is much broader than its power to grant a
judgment of acquittal in that the trial court 'need not view the evidence in the light most 7 favorable to the verdict."' People v. Quinata, 1999 Guam 6 ~ 18 (citing United States v.
8 Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313, 1319 (8th Cir. 1980). This broader grant of discretion allows the trial 9
court to weigh the evidence and evaluate for itself the credibility ofthe witnesses." !d. In view 10
11 of this, appellate courts favor deferring to a trial court's determination of a motion for a new
12 triaL "The trial judge is in a much better position to evaluate the credibility and demeanor of 13 the witnesses." People v. Leslie, 2011 Guam 23 ~ 20. Moreover, consideration of specific 14 support for the court's determination and whether the case is exceptional meriting a new trial 15
16 are other factors to sustain a court's ruling on a motion for a new triaL !d. at~~ 23-25.
17 In the instant case, Defendant Quenga lists thirteen reasons as the basis for granting a 18 new triaL The Court will address the list of Defendant Quenga's points in the order in which 19 they were presented.
20 (1) Time Deadline to Request a New Trial. Defendant Quenga contends that the trial lasted 21
22 over a period of a month and there is no trial transcript available at this time. Based on
23 this fact, Defendant Quenga argues that "[t]he whole case file had to be reviewed for 24 irregularities that are the most prominent from the defendant's perspective and the seven 25 day time limit is not sufficient to accomplish this task." Def. Quenga's Mot. for New 26
Trial at 3 (Oct 8, 2013). In response, the People of Guam "DISAGREE that the seven 27
28 Page I 4 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20 08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
(7) day time limit is 'automatically extended' in this situation.'"
1
at 3 (Oct. 31,201 On this issue, the Court agrees with the People that the seven day
time limit is not automatically extended. However, the Court heard the matter on its 4 merits pursuant f) 8 GCA § 11 0.30(a) in the interests of justice on November 2013.
5 Therefore, the concern regarding time sensitive deadlines is moot and 8 GCA 6
§ 11 0.30(d) is inapplicable.
7
8 (2) Prosecutorial Misconduct or Misconduct.
9 (a) Defendant Quenga argues that "[t]he prosecutor, in his rebuttal on closing, expresses 10 his personal opinion concerning the guilt of the defendants." Def. Quenga's Mot. for 11 New Trial at 3 (Oct. 8, 2013). "In rebuttal to the undersigned's quote of Benjamin 12
13 Franklin['s] statement, that it is better that one hundred men escape a guilty verdict
14 than that one innocent man should suffer, the prosecutor stated, 'These men aren't
15 innocent. They're guilty!"' Id. The Court agrees with the People that 16 "improprieties in arguments do not require new [a] new trial unless so gross as 17 probably to prejudice defendant and prejudice has not been neutralized by [the] trial 18
19 judge." United States v. Rich, 580 F.2d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 1978). In review ofthis
20 statement, the Court finds that the People did not say "They're guilty." Instead, the· 21 People mentioned in the context of the quote that "these men aren't innocent."
22 Further, the Court does not find any serious miscarriage of justice occurred in the 23
case at bar. The Court agrees with the People that in the context of multiple and 24
25 extensive references to the evidence presented and the testimony of the over
26 seventeen (17) witnesses, the statement after seven weeks of jury selection and trial 27
28 Page I 5 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20-08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
is not sufficient to a new triaL In Court instructed in Jury
that and statements " On
basis, the Court does not for a new triaL
Quenga the
prosecutor commented on evidence that had not offered on the record in
reference to alleged rape victim Ameen Tipingini. Further, Defendant Quenga
8 contends that this particular witness created a surprise upon the defense for several
9 reasons. The Court reiterates that Jury Instruction 3K stated very clearly, 10 "Arguments and statements by the la\vyers are not evidence." With respect to 11 discrepancies in testimony, the Court refers to Jury Instruction 4G which directs 12
13 jurors on dealing with such. At the same time, the Court agrees with the People that
14 the witnesses/victims were subject to vigorous cross examinations by Defendants' 15 counsels.
16 (c) Testimony of Simirina Samuel. Defendant Quenga asserts that the second witness 17 Simirina Samuel changed her testimony at trial and claimed that Defendant Quenga 18
19 had sexual intercourse with her, contradicting former statements made to other law
20 enforcement earlier. Defendant Quenga goes on to that the 21 prosecutor, put words "into the mouth of the witness or leading her, asked the 22 rhetorical question, now you know that it's wrong to have lied to agent Dodd, 23 implying there her in-court testimony that the sexual intercourse actually took place 24
25 was the truthful statement-characterizing and indirectly vouching for the witness'
26
27
28 Page I 6 v. Mani & Quenga (CF20-08)
Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
(Oct. 8, 2013). Defendant Quenga contends that [t]his is a mischaracterization of her 1
inconsistent statements and it was an et1ort to vouch this witness."
The Court in review of this contention does not tlnd vouching on the part of the
People. The inconsis.:encies of the in-court testimony of Simirina Samuel when
compared to the discovery was clearly and thoroughly brought out during the
vigorous cross examination by both Defendant Quenga and Defendant Manila's 7
8 counsels. The Court agrees with the People that this is precisely the purpose of
9 cross-examination and both Defendants' counsels exercised their clients' rights to 10 cross-examine Simirina Samuel on the inconsistencies. Again, the Court instructed 11 the jurors on how to deal with Witness Willfully False. See Jury Instruction: CF 20-
12
13 08 at 4M (Sept 19, 2013).
14 (3) Statements bv Co-Defendants Saknin Weria and Freda Eseun. Defendant Quenga argues 15 that "it was error to admit statements early in the trial from witnesses Saknin Weria and 16 Freda Eseun who were codefendants that had entered plea agreements with the 17 government because the prosecutor stated that their statements were those of co-
18
19 conspirators and constituted admissions by a party-opponents." Def. Quenga's Mot. for
~:...:.:......~=at 7-8 (Oct. 8, 2013). Defendant Quenga further argues that the statements by· 21 the two codefendants "could have been admitted on the basis that they were made or for 22 the effect on the hearer, but not as hearsay, since the statement was being offered for the 23
truth of what was asserted. at 8. Defendant Quenga also contends that no instruction 24
25 was given to that effect to ensure that the jurors did not take the hearsay statement as
26 being true but only that they were made." 27
28 Page I 7 v. Manila & Quenga (CF20-08)
Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
Court with the People that the Saknin Weria and Freda Eseun's statements
were properly admitted under the Guam Rules of Evidence and their testimony on the
stand satisfied the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. Again, both
codefendants were subject to vigorous cross examination by both Defendants' counsels
regarding their inconsistencies and bias. Moreover, contrary to Defendant Quenga's
contention, there was a specific jury instruction on this matter. Jury Instruction 4N 7
8 provided for "Testimony of Accomplice of Codefendant to be Viewed with Care and
9 Caution." On this basis, the Court does not find grounds for a new triaL 10 (4) Trial Atmosphere. Defendant Quenga argues that "[t]he atmosphere in which the trial 11 took place was highly charged and prejudicial because of the extensive daily coverage 12
13 by all media, radio, tv and newspapers." Def. Quenga's Mot. for New Trial at 8 (Oct 8,
14 2013). While Defendants contend that "[t]he jurors were not voir dired daily to see if 15 they had obtained any information concerning the trial not obtained through evidence 16 introduced at trial[,] [t]he defense did not ask for this." Id.
17 The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant a right to a trial by a fair and 18
19 impartial jury. See People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ~ 89 (citing U.S. CONST. amend.
20 VI). Thus, "the jury's verdict must be based solely upon the evidence presented at trial, 21 and not on extraneous information." Id. In light of media attention to this case, the 22 Supreme Court of Guam has held that "a trial court maintains a certain degree of 23 discretion and will not be required to poll the jury on every occasion." Id. at ~ 102.
24
Here, the Defendants did not ask for a voir dire of the jury everyday, nevertheless, the
27
28 Page I 8 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20-08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
Court did admonish the jurors at the close of each day. All steps were taken
to ensure the jury kept an open mind.
Defendant Quenga also notes that a order was imposed in this case. However,
"when the AG came out with a 4 11~Superseding Indictment, their spokeswoman freely
spoke to the media and characterized the change as being minor and only involved the
change of a birthdate of the victim in the alleged criminal sexual conduct."
7
8 Quenga's Mot. for New Trial at 8 (Oct. 8, 2013). As noted by Defendant Quenga, the
9 Court agrees with the People that the information released was clearly visible and 10 discernible by anyone comparing the two indictments, and it is therefore deemed public 11 record. On this basis, the Court does not find grounds for a new trial.
12
13 (5) Fourth Superseding Indictment v. Amendment. Defendant Quenga argues that "since
14 the AG's office opted to use only initials [flor the accusers, the only identifying factor 15 was the date of birth. The two sisters, Arita and Ameen both had the same initials so the 16 only distinguishing factor was their date of birth in the CSC charges." Id. at 9.
17 Defendant Quenga contends that the People came out with a 4th Superseding Indictment, 18
19 changing the birthdate and therefore the alleged victim or accuser from Arita to Ameen.
Defendant Quenga argues that this chat1ge affected the substantial rights of the 21 defendant because the defense that had built up for Arita had been obviated.
22 The People address this contention by distinguishing between amending an indictment 23 and submitting the matter the grand jury for a superseding indictment. Defendant 24
25 himself tiled a motion relative to the birthdate discrepancy. Therefore, no surprise factor
26 is plausible. Here, no amendment took place and instead a superseding indictment was 27
28 I 9
People v. Manila Quenga (CF20~08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second returned. Likewise, considering the posture of the case in terms of Defendants' assertion 1
at various the Court was cognizant of Defendants had their trial.
Accordingly, "[t]he defendant is entitled to at five (5) days after entering his plea to
for trial but he may waive any part of such time." 8 GCA § 80.40. was
more than five days from the commencement of the jury selection and the taking of
testimony from the witness/victim in question. On this basis, the Court does not find 7
8 grounds for a new trial.
9 (6) Testimony of Martha Welle. Defendant Quenga contends that Martha Welle's 10 testimony was surprising because she had previously identified two other officers at 11 Blue House and had misidentified Defendant Manila in a photo array, yet in court 12 identified Quenga as the officer who had spoken to her. The Court points to Jury 13
14 Instruction 4G "Discrepancies in Testimony" and Jury Instruction 4M "Witness
15 Willfully False." These instructions were given to the jury to address such a concern 16 and Defendants' counsels had ample opportunity to vigorously cross-examine the 17 victim/witness. On this basis, the Court does not find grounds for a new trial.
18
19 (7) Alleged Coaching. Defendant Quenga argues that many of the witnesses/hostesses at
20 the Blue House club caused surprise because they had made one hundred and eighty 21 degree changes in their testimonies from what was provided in discovery. On that 22 account, Defendant Quenga contends that "it was obvious that the witnesses had been 23 coached and even the FBI agent Jason Dodd admitted on the stand that he prompted 24
25 some of the witnesses when he suggested the names of Mario and Tony to the
26 witnesses." 27
28 Page I 10 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20-08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two to Second
People take umbrage at the unfounded accusation that the witnesses/Victims were 1
coached." with
the People that discrepancies in testimony given to law enforcement ot1icers and
subsequent testimony at trial are common. "That is why there is a Confrontation 5 Clause to allow for the Defendants to put pre'>sure on witnesses." The Court also 6 recognizes that Jury Instruction 4A "Credibility of Witness and Jury Instruction 4B 7
8 "Credibility of Witness-Discrepancies" address this concern. On this basis, the Comt
9 does not find grounds for a new trial. 10 (8) Playback of Recorded Testimonv. Defendant Quenga argues that pursuant to 8 GCA 11 § 105.18, his attorney was not called in to have testimony repeated at the request of the 12
13 jury while they were already deliberating. Defendant Quenga does not point to any
14 specific request of a playback. The Court notifies counsels of every request made by the 15 Jury. Likewise, the Court also inquires whether counsels wish to be present at the 16 conclusion of each day, while jurors are deliberating. The People had no objection to a 17 playback in their absence so long as conducted by the Court. It is this Court's 18
19 recollection that this was also Defendants' desire. Nevertheless, the Court still informed
20 counsels of any developments and/or requests made by the jury throughout their 21 deliberations. On this basis, the Court does not find grounds for a new trial.
22 (9) Testimony of Co-Defendants Saknin Weria. Freda Esuen & Mario Laxamana.
23
Defendant Quenga argues that "testimonies of codefendants and co-conspirators were 24
25 admitted against objections without the prosecution first presenting sufficient evidence
26 to meet the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof that a conspiracy existed.'' 27
28 Page I 11 v. Manila & Quenga (CF20-08)
Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
201 He "[t]hat
principle should have statements by the
Saknin Freda Mario
The People to this COllteJ1ticm The People
a agreement aud testified. Their outlined part of
7
8 The Court notes that before the codefendauts took the staud, witnesses were called
9 which provided sufficient evidence as to their involvement to make their testimony 10 relevaut by a preponderance of evidence. Additionally, testimonies of the codefendants 11 was subject to vigorous cross-examination as afforded by our Guam Rules of Evidence.
12
13 On this basis, the Court does not find grounds for a new triaL
14 (10) District Court Testimony of Defendaut Manila. Defendant Quenga argues that
15 Defendaut Manila's former testimony from the District Court of Guam trial involving 16 Co-Defendaut Song Ja Cha was admitted and read into the record verbatim by the 17 federal court reporter, before Co-Defendant Manila took the stand, "at which time such 18
19 testimony could properly have been used as impeachment material." Def. Quenga's
20
21 Guam Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3) clearly allows for the admissibility of Defendaut 22 Mauila' s former testimony at the District Court of Guam. The "corroborating 23 circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement," considering it was 24
25 given under oath at the District Court of Guam. \\'hether it was admitted before he
26 testified, it was former testimony and its trustworthiness was made clear through the 27
28 Page I 12 v. Manila & Quenga (CF20 08} Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce convictions as to First Two Charges to Second federal court reporter's of reading it into the record. On this basis, the Court 1
does not find grounds for a new trial.
(11) Defendant Quenga repeats his objection to the conspiracy
charges, that "they contained no overt acts the indictment."
with the People that this issue
was properly resolved when the Defendants raised this issue via pre-trial motion and 7
8 during the trial. "The Trial Jury, which heard all the evidence, listened to all the cross-
9 examinations [and] found the Defendants guilty." People's Amended Opp'n. Mot. at 10 10 (Nov. 6, 2013 ). On this basis, the Court does not find grounds for a new trial.
11 (12) Conspiracy Charges. Defendant also highlights that there were four conspiracy 12
13 charges with four different underlying substantive crimes. Similar to the Court's
14 previous response, this Court properly resolved this issue when raised by the Defendants 15 during pre-trial motion and during the course of trial. On this basis, the Court does not 16 find grounds for a new trial.
17 (13) Shortened/Hastened Proceedings. Defendant Quenga argues that "[t]he fact that 18
19 the prosecutor had to go off island shortened and hastened all the proceedings after he
20 had finished his case in chief. It squashed the remainder of the trial into a short time 21 span-to present the defendants' cases-in-chief, to review and agree on which jury 22 instructions to include in the packet that would go to the jury, and to present closing 23 arguments." Def. Quenga's Mot. for New Trial at 12 (Oct. 8, 2013).
24
25 The Court finds that Defendants' counsels never complained about being rushed or
26 hastened. No objections were made concerning the assigned prosecutor's possible 27
28 Page I 13 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20 08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
substitution should it be The Court consistently inquired from Defendants on
how much time was needed. Likewise, Defendant Quenga's counsel that she had
forwarded ''most jury instructions to chamber staff over the weekend as instructed, [but]
4 was barely able to of those proposed considered because of the time constraint."
5 Id. The Court consider~d each parties' proposed instructions. It is for this reason that 6
the Court consistently requested counsel to submit their completed instructions ahead of
8 time. Nevertheless, the Court considered all instructions at the scheduled conference
9 before closing arguments and final reading to the jury. If proposed instructions were not 10 included, it is because the Court found it inapplicable to the case after review. However, 11 the Court considered every submission from counsel. In fact, counsel also noted that the 12
13 Court was so responsive at 3:30 in the morning to confirm receipt of the proposed jury
14 instructions. On this basis, the Court finds no grounds for a new trial. 15 Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the convictions for which Defendants 16 have moved for a new trial are firmly supported by the evidence presented. After presiding over 17 the jury trial and listening to all the testimony, the Court finds that this is not an exceptional 18
19 case in which the totality of the evidence weighs so heavily against the verdict, that Defendants
20 should be granted a new trial. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. 21 Motion to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second Degree Felonies 22 Defendant Manila moves the Court to reduce the first two charges in the Fourth 23 Superseding Indictment from First Degree Felonies to Second Degree Felonies. Defendant 24
Quenga joins in on this motion. The motion concerns nine counts of Conspiracy to Commit 25
26 Kidnapping as a First Degree Felony and 9 counts ofKidnapping as a First Degree Felony.
27
28 Page I 14 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20 08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
Defendants that "the evidence presented by the Government tended to prove a conspiracy
between Co Defendant Song Ja Cha and Serko Tipingeni to bring the complaining witnesses to
their will, hy deceiving them into
believing that they would be working at legitimate jobs in a store or restaurant and then
preventing them from leaving." Def. Manila's Motion to Reduce Convictions as to First Two 7 Charges to Second Degree Felonies at 2 (Oct. 9, 2013). Defendant Manila further argues that 8 "[n]o evidence was presented that [he] or Co Defendant Anthony Quenga had anything to do 9
with their being brought to Guam or beginning to work as prostitutes." Id. Moreover, 10
11 Defendant moves to have the first two charges reduced to Second Degree Felonies since "a
12 defendant cannot be convicted of failure to release in a safe place without having first removed 13 the victim to an unsafe place." Id. at 4-5.
14 The People oppose Defendants' motion. The People rest their opposition on three 15
16 contentions: (1) A plain reading of 9 GCA § 22.20 provides that kidnapping is generally a first-
17 degree felony when a person unlawfully confines another; (2) The Legislature intended to make 18 kidnapping by confinement a first-degree felony; and (3) Case law clearly supports the 19 proposition that kidnapping by way of confinement can be a first-degree felony." See People's 20 Opp'n. Mot. (Nov. 8, 2013).
21
22 Guam law provides the following relative for Kidnapping:
23 §22.20. Kidnapping; Defined & Punished 24 (a) A person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another from his place of residence or business, or a substantial distance from the vicinity 25 where he is found; or if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial 26 period, with any of the following purposes:
(1) to hold for ransom or reward;
27 (2) to facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter; 2 Page I 15 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20-08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
(3) to inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another; or (4) to interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. (b) Kidnapping is a felony of the first degree unless the defendant voluntarily releases the victim alive and a safe place prior to trial, in which case it is a felony of the second degree. In the case of kidnapping as a felony of the first the court shall impose a sentence of imprisonment of a minimum term of ten (10) years and may a maximum sentence of up to twenty-five 5 (25) years; said minimum tem1 shall not be suspended nor probation be imposed in lieu of such minimum term nor shall parole or work release be 6 granted before completion of the minimum term. The sentence shall include a special parole term of not less than three (3) years in addition to such term of 7 imprisonment.
8 (c) A removal or confinement is unlawful within the meaning of this section if it is accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person who 9 is under the age of fourteen ( 14) or incompetent, if it is accomplished without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general 10 supervision of his welfare.
11 9 GCA § 22.20 (2005).
12
13 In review of the instant motion, the Court agrees with the People. The Court looked at
14 the statute and legislative history affecting kidnapping. See People v. Jose Rios Camacho, Jr.
15 2013 Guam 3 ~ 12. The statute when read as a whole, is clear that the Legislature intended to 16 make kidnapping by way of confinement a first degree felony. Nothing in Public Law 14-143, 17 which amended section 22.20 (b) to its current form, indicates in any way that the Legislature 18
19 intended to exclude kidnapping by way of confinement as a first degree felony. The Court also
20 recognizes that the trial jurors were given lesser included offenses of second degree felonies to 21 consider. In the end, they still returned verdicts on the first degree felony charges of Charges 1 22 and 2 of the Fourth Superseding Indictment. On that basis, the Court does not find reason to 23 reduce the charges to second degree felonies. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Reduce 24
25 Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second Degree Felonies is DENIED.
26 Ill 27
28 Page I 16 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20 08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to Second
CONCLUSION
1
By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, Court
DENIES Defendants' Motion for New Trial and Motion to Reduce Convictions as to First Two
to Second Degree Felonies.
5 The Court has one other matter under advisement concerning Deiendaut:; Manila and 6
Quenga. Sentencing will be scheduled upon disposition of that motion.
7
8 SO ORDERED this _>_day of FEBRUARY, 2014.
9
10
11
12 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
26
27
28 Page I 17 People v. Manila & Quenga (CF20-08) Mot. for New Trial & Mot. to Reduce Convictions as to First Two Charges to second