People v. Matheus

Opinion

I EI e z... ,Q J 5'-g=a==,s,» : s n - \.-fL.i..i».i'"a mf*

2 2325 2025 JUL 331E pPM!2= f2: GB 08 €" T I ?"§: ..~; !"\ """'· ~ ; •·=..........,. 3 -..,»=..Ji \. ,_, -..._,;t ,'¼.. ~ .. J V i ;2_"\ 4

COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 6 ) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASECASE NO. CF0367-25 GUAM, )) GPD Report No. No.25-12723 25-12723 )) 8 vs. ) 9 ) )) 10 MATHEUS, )) aka Bryan Bryan Mattheus Matheus ) DECISION DECISION & ORDER 11 )) RE. DEFENDANT'S DEFENDANT'S MOTION MOTION IN aka Brien Matthews LIMINE LIMINE TO TO EXCLUDE EXCLUDE STATEMENTS aka Breien Soram )) DUE TO LATE DISCLOSURE 12 12 DOB: DOB: 06/23/1996 06/23/1996 or or 02/23/1997 02/23/1997 or ) 13 13 06/23/1993 or 01/25/1996 )) ) 14 14 Defendant. ) ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ )w 15 15

16 16 This matter came came before before the Honorable Alberto E. E. Tolentino Tolentinoon onJuly July 28, 28, 2025, 2025, for for Jury Jury

17 17 Selection Selection and and Trial. Defendant Defendant Bryan Mattheus("Defendant") Bryan Matheus ("Defendant") was was present with counsel counsel Alternate Alternate 18 18 Public Defender Defender Peter Peter Santos. Santos. Assistant Assistant Attorney AttorneyGeneral GeneralDante Dante Harootunian Harootunian was present for the 19 19 People of of Guam Guam ("People"). ("People"). Before Beforeselecting selecting aa jury jury ofoftwelve twelve(12), (12),the thecourt courtaddressed addressed the the 20 20

21 21 Defendant's Motion Motion in Liming Limine to Exclude Statements Due Due to to Late Late Disclosure, Disclosure, which which was was filed filed on

22 22 July 25, 2025. July 25, hearing oral arguments 2025. Upon hearing arguments from both sides, sides, the court court took took the the matter matter under under 23 23 advisement pursuantotoSupreme advisement pursuant SupremeCourt CourtofofGuam GuamAdministrative AdministrativeRule Rule06-001, 06-001,CVR CVR7.1( 7.1(e)(6)(A) e)( 6)(A) 24 24 and CRl.1 CR1 .1of ofthe theLocal Local Rules Rules of the Superior Court of ofGuam. Having duly Guam. Having duly considered considered the the parties parties' 25 briefings, oral oral arguments, arguments, and the the applicable applicable law, the court now issues issues this Decision Decision and and Order 26 26

27 27 DENYING the Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Exclude Statements Due to Statements Due to Late Late Disclosure.

28 \\

Decision Decision & Order Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion in Limine to in Liming to Exclude Exclude Statements Statements Due to Late Late Disclosure Disclosure PPeople v. Mattheus, e op v. CF0367-25 Matheus, CF0367-25 Page Page 11 of of7 BACKGROUND 1

2 On May 30, 30, 2025, the Defendant 2025, the Defendantwas wascharged chargedwith withPROMOTING PROMOTINGMAJOR MAJOR PRISON

CONTRABAND(As a 2nd (As a 2ndDegree DegreeFelony) Felony)based eventsthat basedononevents occurred on thatoccurred on or or about about May 17, 17, 4 2025. See Indictment (May 30, 2025. See 30, 2025). He He asserted asserted his right to speedy speedy trial at at arraignment, arraignment, which 5 took place on on June 12,2025. June 12, 2025.See SeeArraignment ArraignmentHr'g Hr'g Mins. at at 11:25:30AM 11 :25:30AM(June 12, 2025).11 The (June 12, 6

7 court originally originally had had Jury Selection and Jury Selection Trial scheduled and Trial scheduled for for July July 22, 2025, at 11:00PM. 2025, at See Criminal :00PM. See Criminal

8 Trial Scheduling Trial Scheduling Order Order (June (June 17, 17, 2025). 2025). Without Without objection objection from either either party, party, the the court court 9 rescheduled it to commence on July July28, 28,2025. 2025.See SeePre-Trial Pre-Trial Conference Mims. at9139:18AM Mins. at 9:39: 18AM (July 10 16, 2025).22 11 Prior to trial, the Defendant Prior Defendant filed filed his Motion Motion inLimine Statements Due Limine to Exclude Statements Due to to Late Late 12 12

13 13 Disclosure ("Motion in Liming") Disclosure ("Motion Limine") on on July 25, 2025. July 25, 2025 .On Onthe theday dayof of Jury JurySelection Selection and and Trial, Trial, the

14 14 court heard heard arguments argumentson onthe theDefendant's Defendant's Motion Motion in Limine Limine and subsequently subsequently took the matter matter 15 15 under advisement. See under advisement. See Jury JurySelection Selection & & Trial Trial Mims. Mins. at 2:10:14-21:IOPM 2:10: - 21:10PM (July 28, 2025). That 28, 2025). 16 16 same day, the same day, thecourt courtempaneled empaneledaajury juryof oftwelve twelve (12) and and scheduled trial, trial, beginning with opening 17 statements, tocommence statements, to commenceon onAugust August5,5,2025, 2025,atat9:00AM. 9:00AM./d Id at at 4:36:42- 4:36:42 5:02:30PM. 18 18

19 19 DISCUSSION

20 20 The Defendant seeksthe Defendant seeks the exclusion exclusionof of two two pieces pieces of of discovery: discovery: (1) any any testimony testimony or 21 evidence evidence regarding regarding the the alleged statement made to statement made to Officer Officer Stephanie Stephanie Bermudas, and (2) Bermudes; and (2) any any 22 22 testimony, documents, documents, or references references to the the May May24, 24, 2025, 2025, disciplinary disciplinaryboard board hearing hearing and and any plea 23 23

24 11 Because BecausethetheDefendant Defendantwas wasdetained detainedatathe thetime timeof ofarraignment, arraignment,trial trialhad hadtotocommence commencewithin withinforty-five forty-five (45) days 25 after after his his arraignment pursuant to arraignment pursuant to 88 GCA GCA §§ 80.60(a); 80.60(a), specifically, specifically, on or before on or before July July 27, 2025. 27, 2025. 2 Given that 2 last day day to to commence commence trial trial would have been on Sunday July 27, 2025, the court rescheduled rescheduled trial, trial, Given that the last Sunday July 26 26 objection from without objection without from the the parties, for a parties, for datebeyond a date beyondforty-five forty-five days of arraignment days of pursuanttoto88GCA arraignment pursuant 80.60(b)(l). GCA§§80.60(b )(1 ). "[S]uch "[S]uch anan action action will willnot notbe bedismissed dismissed ififthe theaction actionisissetset on on aa date period upon motion of the date beyond the prescribed period 27 27 defendant or with his his consent, consent, express express or or implied, implied, andand hehe is is brought to trial on the date so set or within within ten ten (10) days thereafter" thereafter" Quinata (People), 2010 rata v. Superior Court (People), Guam 88 ,r1113 2010 Guam (citing 88G.C.A. 13 (citing G.C.A. §§ 80.60(b)(l) 80.60(b)(l) (2005) (2005) (emphasis (emphasis 28 28 added)). Additionally, the added)). Additionally, the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court has found the Defendant's implied implied consent consent to set trial beyond the time period period ififthe the defendant defendant failed failed toto object object atat the the time time the the cause set for cause is set for trial. ,r trial. Id 1117.

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion Motion in Liming Limine to Exclude Exclude Statements Statements Due to to Late Disclosure Disclosure People v. Matheus, CF0367-25 v. Mattheus,CF0367-25 Page Page 2 of7 entered therein.Def. entered therein. Def.'s 's Mot. Liming Limine (July (July 25, 25, 2025). the court Before the 2025). Before can determine court can whether determine whether 1

22 exclusion is an an appropriate remedy, the appropriate remedy, the court first decide mustfirst court must whether the decide whether People violated its the People

3 3 Defendant. the Defendant. to the obligations to discovery obligations 4 A. The A. ThePeople Peopleviolated violatedits itsdiscovery Matheus. Defendant Mattheus. to Defendant obligationto discoveryobligation 5 8 GCA §§ 70.10 8 GCA relays the 70.10 relays the People's People's discovery discovery obligations as as follows: follows: 6

(a) (a) Except Exceptasasotherwise otherwiseprovided providedby §§ 70.20 by§§ 70.20andand70.30, 70.30, atat any any time after the first 7 appearance noticed motion uponnoticed appearance upon defendant, the motion by the defendant, shall order the the court shall 8 prosecuting attorney to prosecuting attorney to disclose disclose to the attorney or permit the defendant's attorney the defendant's the defendant's attorney attorney to to inspect inspect and andcopy following material and information thefollowing copythe information 9 the within his possession possession oror control, control, the existence of the existence known, or by the of which is known, 10 10 exercise of ofdue due diligence diligence may may become become known known to the prosecuting to the attorney: pro~ecuting attorney:

11 11 (1) (1)thethename nameand and address address ofof any any person whom the prosecuting attorney person whom intends attorney intends to call as as a witness at atthe thetrial, together with trial,together his relevant with his written or recorded relevant written 12 12 statement, statement; 13 13 (2) (2) any anywritten writtenororrecorded recordedstatement statementand substance of the substance and the any oral ofany statement oral statement made by the defendant or the defendant madeby or made co-defendantif by aaco-defendant if the trial is to be a joint the trial joint 14 14 one, one; (3) any any report report oror statement statement of of an an expert, made in expert, made connection with in connection with the case, the case, 15 15 examinations and including results of physical or mental examinations andofof scientific tests, 16 16 comparisons; experiments or comparisons, (4) (4) any any book, book, paper, paper, document, photograph or document, photograph object, which the tangible object, or tangible the 17 17 prosecuting attorney intends intends to use in the to use trial or which was obtained from the trial or or belonged belonged to the the defendant, defendant; 18 (5) (5) any any record record ofofprior priorcriminal persons whom convictionsofofpersons criminalconvictions whomthe prosecuting the prosecuting 19 19 attorney intends to to call as witnesses at thethe trial; trial, (6) 6) whether whetherthere electronic surveillance of conversations to which has been an electronic there has 20 20 the defendant was party party or or of his premises, premises; (7) (7) any anymaterial materialororinformation informationwhich whichtends tends toto negate guilt of negate the guilt the defendant ofthe 21 as to the offense or would charged or offense charged tend to would tend reduce his to reduce punishment therefor. his punishment 22 (b) (b) The Theprosecuting obligationsunder attorney'sobligations prosecutingattorney's this Section underthis extend to Sectionextend any material to any 23 23 information in information in the possession or control of of members members of of his his staff staff and and any other any persons who have participated in the the investigation investigation or evaluation of or evaluation the case ofthe and case and 24 24 who either regularly report or with with reference to this reference to case have this case reported to his have reported 25 office.

26 8GCA§70.10(a)-(b). 8 GCA § 70.l0(a)-(b). 27

Decision Decision & Order Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion in Limine Limine to Exclude Exclude Statements Due to Statements Due to Late Disclosure People v. v. Mattheus, CF0367-25 Matheus, CF0367-25 Page 3 of7 of Further, all parties have a continuing duty to to disclose disclose to the other other party, attorney, or the l

2 court "additional material or information previously requested or ordered, ordered, which is subject to

3 disclosure." disclosure." 88 GCA GCA §§ 70.40. 70.40. Here, Here, the the Defendant Defendant argues argues that that the the People People violated violated its its discovery discovery 4 obligations to him after disclosing discovery discovery as late as three days before trial. See Def.'s Mot. trial. See 5 Limine of trial, the People argue that even Liming at 2. On the day of even though the the disciplinary disciplinary board board report 6

of the Attorney General "had existed since May, the Office of "had no knowledge knowledge of of it until preparing for 7

8 past week." trial this past week." Jury JuryTrial TrialMims. Mins. at at 2:11 2:11:15 15--. 11:49PM 11:49PM (July (July 28, 28, 2025). 2025). In In accordance accordance with

9 GCA §§ 70.40, 88 GCA 70.40, the the People People further further argued argued that when itit received that when that report, received that it was report, it was turned turned over over to to 10 10 defense immediately. Id. Id. 11 Despite Despite no noticed noticed motion motion that was filed, filed, the the Defendant Defendant made made his his oral oral request request for for 12 12

13 arraignment on discovery at arraignment on June June 12, 12, 2025. 2025. See Arraignment Hr'g Hr'g Mims. Mins. at 11:25:30AM 11:25:30AM (June

14 12, 2025). 2025). Additionally, Additionally, the court also reminded the People to submit any undisclosed discovery 15 as soon as possible in consideration possible in consideration of the Defendant's Defendant's assertion assertion of of speedy speedy trial. See Further trial. See Further 16 Proceedings Mims. atat 2:44:30 Proceedings Mins. 2:44:30-- 45:15PM 45:15PM (June (June 20, 20, 2025). 2025). As As stated stated in in his his Motion in Liming, Limine, 17 17 "Government "Government counsel counsel stated stated that that the the People People were were ready ready to to proceed to trial and made no indication 18 18

19 that additional that additional reports reports or or discovery discovery were were forthcoming." forthcoming." Def. De£'s Mot. Limine at Mot. Liming at 1-2. 1-2. Specifically, Specifically,

20 the People stated at the Pre-Trial Conference Conference that although they had been negotiating about about a 21 possible global resolution possible global resolution of of the the Defendant's Defendant's pending criminal criminal matters, "either way, matters, "either way, we are are 22 prepared to to proceed to to trial trial if they continue to assert." Pre-Trial Conference Mins. at 9:25:46 - 23

24 24 26:11AM 26: 11AM(July (July16, 16, 2025). 2025).

25 While the People maintain that itit had no no knowledge knowledge of of the the disciplinary disciplinary board board report report or

26 26 until interviewing one of the witnesses the week prior, prior, the court is also aware aware that that same 27 27 witness has has been been on on the thePeople's People's Witness List since June List since June 13, 2025. See 13, 2025. SeePpl.'s Ppl.'s Witness List List (June (June 28

Decision &&Order Decision Order Re. Re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion in Limine Exclude Statements Limine to Exclude Statements Due Due to to Late Late Disclosure Disclosure People v. Matheus, CF0367-25 v. Mattheus,CF0367-25 Page Page 4 of of7 13, 13, 2025). the People exercised its due 2025). Had the due diligence in in this this case, the People would not have case, the 1

2 waited until the week before Jury until the Jury Selection and Trial Trial to interview interview Witnesses witnesses it intends to call in intends to

3 ofits light of its representations representations to to the the court court that that the the People People were were ready ready to proceed to trial trial on on this this 4 4 asserted case. asserted case. Therefore, Therefore, the the court court finds finds that that the the People People violated violated its discovery obligations obligations to 5 Defendant Defendant Mattheus under88GCA Matheus under GCA §§ 70.10. 70.10. 6

7 B. Exclusion B. Exclusionofofevidence evidenceisis not not an an appropriate appropriatesanction sanction in in this this case. case.

8 "If "If at any time during the course of ofthe the proceedings, proceedings, it is brought brought to the attention of the

9 court that a party has with an order issued pursuant has failed to comply with pursuant to this this Chapter, the court 10 10 . . . order such may order such party party to comply comply with with the the poor priororder, order,grant grantaacontinuance, continuance, or or Issue issue such such other other 11 order as it deems just just under under the the circumstances." circumstances." 8 GCA GCA §§70.45 70.45. 12 12

13 13 When When trial judges select select aa sanction sanction to impose against counsel, the Guam Supreme Court impose against

14 14 has iterated that the the appropriate sanction is "proportionate People v. "proportionate to the misconduct." People v. Tuncap, 15 15 Guam 13 1998 Guam ,i 24 (quoting United 13 1] United States 1169 (9th Cir. 1983)). In v. Gee, 695 F.2d 1165, 1169 States v. 16 16 the trial addition, the trial court should should impose impose the the least least severe severe sanction sanction to to achieve achieve "prompt and full 17 17 18 compliance with the compliance with thecourt's court'sdiscovery discoveryorders." orders,"Id. Id (quoting United United States v.v. Sarcinelli, Sarcinelli, 667 F.2d 18

19 19 5, 7 (5th Cir. 1982)). 1982)). The TheGuam Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court has has found that that the the better better policy policy when applying

20 sanctions is to to choose choose one one that that"affect[ "affect[s] s] the the evidence attrial evidenceat trialand and the the merits merits of ofthe the case case as little little as as 21 possible."People possible." v. Martinez, 2017Guam 2017 23 ,i ii 14 (quoting Tuncap, Tuncap, 1998 1998 Guam 13 13,i1]23 (citation 23 (citation 22 and internal internal quotation quotation marks marksomitted)). omitted)). I

23 .23

24 24 The Defendant argues that"exclusion argues that "exclusion is the only remedy that prevents prevents prejudice" prejudice" with

25 25 trial commencing within within three three days of of his his Motion Motion in in Limine. Def.'s Mot. Liming Limine at at 2. While

26 26 maintaining with discovery maintaining its compliance with discovery obligations obligationsin inthis this case, case, the the People People stated stated to to the the court 27

Decision Decision & &Order Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion in Liming Defendant's Motion Limine to Exclude Exclude Statements Due to Statements Due toLate LateDisclosure Disclosure Matheus, CF0367-25 People v. Mattheus,CF0367-25 Page Page 5 of7 if the main that "the suggested remedy is continuation in order to give defense the time they need if 1

2 2 complaint 75 Mins. at 2:11:50- Trial Mims. Jury Trial complaint is lack of time." See Jury 12:41PM (July 28, 2025). 2:11:50 12:41PM

3 28, 2025, the court empaneled a jury in this case in accordance On July 28, with Guam's accordance with 4 . u . . . statutory dual statutes. statutory speedy trial Whlle the statutes.While courtagrees thecourt thathe agreesthat Peopleuntimely thePeople disclosed discovery untimelydisclosed discovery 5 to the Defendant on July Defendant on 24th and July 24th 25th, it also notes that this jury trial and 25th, is not trial is scheduled to begin not scheduled 6 7 The continuance of the trial until August 5, 2025. The has given trial has the Defendant an additional week to given the 7

8 review the untimely and prepare discovery and untimely discovery for trial. In light of an prepare for empaneled jury and continued an empaneled

99 trial in trial in this this case, case, the the extent extent of of the People's discovery violation the People's to the due to prejudice due Defendant's prejudice the Defendant's 10 10 . . . not severe is not enough to severe enough warrant exclusion to warrant ofthe exclusion of evidence. Nonetheless, the evidence. the court Nonetheless, the strictly court strictly 11 the People admonishes the for its lack of People for due diligence of due on the eve of trial in producing late discovery on diligence in 12 12

13 13 after assuring the court it was ready to proceed to trial.

14 14 Therefore, the court Therefore, the court finds the Defendant's proposed sanction of exclusion is not that the finds that

15 15 proportionate to the People's People's misconduct this case. inthis misconductin Further, the court finds that continuance of case. Further, 16 16 the trial to August August 5, 5, 2025, 2025, isis the the least least severe severe sanction sanction in in this caseto this case achieve the toachieve People's prompt the People's 17 17 18 and full compliance with the court's discovery order. 18

19 19 \\

20 \\ \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 24 24 \\\ 25 \\

26 26 \\ 27 \\ \\ 28

Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion in Defendant's Motion Liming to Exclude in Limine Statements Due Exclude Statements Disclosure Due to LateDisclosure People v. Matheus, v. Mattheus,CF0367-25 Page Page 6 of7 CONCLUSION 1

2 For For the the reasons reasons stated stated above, the court court DENIES DENI~S the Defendant's Defendant's Motion in Liming Limine to

33 Exclude Statements Due to Statements Due Late Disclosure. to Late 4

7 Jury Trial is scheduled before this court on August 5, 2025, Jury Trial at9:00AM. 2025, at 9:00AM.

8 JUL 31 2025 1 8325 LE

SO ORDERED ORDERED this this 9 ----------- 10 10

11 11

12 12

113 in \ HOTWO T3'i§i1`ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 14 14 Judge, Judge, Superior Court of Guam Guam 15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19 slnvlce Sl!llVICI!vIA VIAls-ulAII. 1!-MAIL 20 20 I• acknowledge accnowieoge thattt,at an af"I electrons; eiecrron1t Cony Cop-, o* the Of»g~na~ of•~ wase e,,,e· ori£ •"11 ' .,.,as mailed to ,1eo ro 21 /JG, /J/'D I25, I/fo 22 22 r/21/15 rin,el ;;_,e~ Date +A//5 TiMe. / 22 23 23 #lAM ('»4d¢» l!tht4- a f,r,/tU1J ~ Deputy Oepury clerk clerk.. Superior Court Coun of Of Guam Guam 24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

Decision Decision & &Order Order Re. Re. Defendant's Motion in Liming Defendant's Motion Limine to Exclude Exclude Statements Due to Statements Due toLate LateDisclosure Disclosure People Peoplev. v. Mattheus, Matheus, CF0367-25 Page7 Page 7 of of7