FL·1 LL EE |D OF COURT
CLERKGF
2021, PH2:2: 37
SEP1212PH
202~SEP 37
1
UP E RIORCOURT SUPERIOR co u n t
2 OF GUA M a OF'G.UAMA
3
4
5
6 OF GUAM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IN THE GUAM 7 OF GUAM,
PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASECASE NO. CF0343-22 8 ) GPD GPD Report
Report nos.
NOS.21-10914/22-13561
21-10914/22-13561
)
9 vs. )
10 ) DECISION AND ORDER RICKEY RICKEY CHRIS CHRIS MCINTOSH, MCINTOSH, JR.,JR., ) RE. DEFENDANT'S MOTION MOTION TO
11 11 aka Rickey Mclntosh, aka Ricky Rickey Chris McIntosh, ) DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR Chris McIntosh, Mclntosh, aka
akaRicky
Ricky Chris
ChrisMcIntosh,
Mclntosh, )) MISJOINDER OF OFFENSES 12 12 Jr., aka Jr., akaJoey JoeyTole
Tole Chariss Santiago, )
13 13 DOB: DOB:03/15/1977 03/15/1977 )
i ))
14 Defendant. ))
_________ ______))
15
16 16 I.
1. INTRODUCTION
17 17 14, 2024, for a This matter came before the Honorable Judge Maria T. Cenzon on June 14, 18 hearing on Defendant hearing on DefendantRickey Rickey Chris
ChrisMcIntosh,
Mclntosh,Jr.'s
Jr.'s("Defendant") to Dismiss Motion to
("Defendant") Motion Indictment Dismiss Indictment
19 19 for for Misj binder of Misj oinder of Offenses (the "Motion"). thehearing Presentatathe
"Motion").Present wereDefendant, hearing were in person, with Defendant, in
20 20
counsel Mark S.
S. Smith via
via Zoom, and AssistantAttorney and Assistant General Kristine B. Borja Attorney General in person for Borja in
21 21
22 22 the People of of Guam ("the People").
Guam ("the People").After Afterhearing argumentsfrom oralarguments
hearingoral theparties, fromthe the Court took parties, the
23 23 the underadvisement the Motion under advisementpursuant pursuant CVR
to to OF THE RULES OF
LOCALRULES
theLOCAL
7.1(e)(6)(D)ofofthe 7.l(e)(6)(D) CVR
24 24 SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF
OF GUAM.
GUAM.
25
26
27 27
28 28
v. McIntosh,
People v. Jr., Criminal Mcintosh, Jr., Case No.
Criminal Case CF0343-22 No. CF0343-22
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Re. Defendant's Misjoinder of Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Misjoinder Offenses ofOffenses
Page of8 Page 1 of
After After reviewing
reviewing the
the Defendant's
Defendant's Motion,
Motion, the
the People's
People's Opposition,
Opposition, the Defendant's Reply, I
2 oral arguments arguments from the Defendant Defendant and
and the People,
People, and
and the
the applicable
applicable statutes
statutes and case
case law, the
3 Court now now issues
issuesthis
thisDecision
Decisionand
andOrder
OrderDENYING
DENYING Defendant's Motion.
4 II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5 21, 2022,
On May 21, 2022, the
the People
People filed a Magistrate's Magistrate's Complaint
Complaint charging
charging Defendant
Defendant with
with the
6
7 following offenses:
offenses: the
the First
First Charge
Charge of
ofPossession
Possession of
ofaaSchedule
Schedule IIIIControlled
ControlledSubstance
Substance with
wit
7
8 8 Intent to to Deliver
Deliver (As
(As aa First Degree Felony), the Second Charge Charge of
of Criminal
Criminal Mischief
Mischief (As
(As a Third
9 9 Degree Felony), Felony), the
the Third
Third Charge
Charge ofEluding
Eludingaa Police
PoliceOfficer
Officer(As
(Asa aMisdemeanor),
Misdemeanor),and
andthe
the Fourth
Fourt
10 10 Charge of Reckless Conduct Charge Conduct (As Misdemeanor). See (As a Misdemeanor). See Magis. Compl. (May Maris. Con (May 21,
21, 2022).
2022). On May
Ma
11 27, 2022, a grand grand jury
jury returned
returned an
an Indictment
Indictment in
in this
this matter
matter charging
charging the
the Defendant
Defendant with the same
12 12
13 13 offenses. See Indictment (May 27, 27, 2022).
2022).
14 14 A. The The Alleged Incident on May May 5,
5, 2022
15 The indictment stems from events that are are alleged to have
have occurred
occurred on
on May
May 5,
5, 2022,
2022, and
an
16 16 May 20, 20, 2022.
2022. As set
set forth
forth in
in the
the Declaration
Declaration of
ofProbable
Probable Cause,
Cause, on May 5,
5, 2022,
2022, Guam police
17 17 18 with Marciano met with Marciano Patricio, Patricio, aa United
United States
States Marshal.
Marshal. Patricio
Patriciostated
stated that
that he
he and
and other local and
an
18
19 19 federal marshals had attempted marshals had attemptedto
to execute
execute a parole warrant
warrant on the Defendant. See Declaration,
20 Maris.
Magis. Con pl. (May Compl. (May21
21, 2022). Patricio, in an anunmarked
unmarkedvehicle,
vehicle,followed
followed the
theDefendant's
Defendant'svehicl
vehicle
21 residence. Id
to aa residence. Id Patricio Patriciothen
thenexited
exitedhis
hisvehicle,
vehicle,announced
announced his
his presence,
presence, and
and the Defendant's
22 vehicle drove drove around the yard.
around the yard. Id.
Id While
While driving
drivingout
out ofofthe
theresidence,
residence, the
the defendant's
defendant's vehicle
23 23 24 narrowly missed marshals who were marshals who were outside outside the
the residence,
residence, but
buthit
hitPatricio's
Patricio's 2013
2013 Ford
Ford Explorer,
24
25 25 which police police noted
noted had
had scratches
scratches and marks
marks on
on the bumper. Id
the bumper. Id The
Themarshals
marshals did
did not
not pursue
pursue the
26 26 Defendant upon the the belief
belief that he
he was
was dangerous
dangerousdue
duetotohis
hisextensive
extensivecriminal
criminalhistory.
history. Id
Id
27 27
28
People v. McIntosh,
Mclntosh, Jr.,
Jr., Criminal Case No. CF0343-22 Case No.
Decision Decision and
and Order Re.
Re. Defendant's Motion
Motion to Dismiss Indictment Indictment for
for Misjoinder
Misjoinder of Offenses
Page 2 of
of8
B. The The Alleged Incident on May May 20,
20, 2022
l
2 On May 20, 2022, Guam Guam police observed two motorcycles motorcycles traveling
traveling at
at a high
high rate of speed
3 on Route 1. Id. Other motorists Id Other motorists were
were observed
observed having
having to
to break
break or
or swerve to avoid colliding with 4 4 motorcycles. Id.
the motorcycles. Police attempted Id Police attempted a traffic traffic stop,
stop, but
but the
the motorcycles
motorcycles did
did not stop. Id.
not stop. Id One
5 motorcycle motorcycle with an operator operator and a passenger
passenger turned
turned onto Wusstig
Wusstig Road and
and aa police
police officer
office
6 7 pursued them. Id. The motorcycle Id The motorcycle eventually eventually stopped
stopped and
and both
both riders
riders fled on foot into the jungle.
7
88 Id. As Asshe shefled,
fled, the
the female
female passenger
passengerthrew
threwaa bag
bag that
that she was wearing onto the ground. Both riders
99 apprehended by were apprehended by the police, police; the male
male rider was identified identified later
later as the Defendant
Defendant and the female
10 juvenile. Id.
passenger was aa juvenile. Policesearched Id Police searched the
the Defendant
Defendant and
and discovered
discovered 8.79
8.79 grams of a white
11
substance and a glass substance pipe. Id.
glass pipe. Id The substance tested presumptive positive for methamphetamine.
methamphetamine.
12 12
13 13 Id. Police Police searched
searched the
the thrown
thrownbag,
bag, which
whichcontained
contained44.64
44.64 grams
grams of
ofaa white
white substance
substance that
that later
late
14 14 tested presumptive presumptive positive
positive for
for methamphetamine.
methamphetamine. Id.
Id The bag also
also contained
contained one
one thousand
thousand fiv
Ive
15 15 ,500.00).Id.
hundred dollars ($1,500.00). Id The female female passenger
passenger told police that she asked the Defendant Defendant for
16 ide. Id. TThe a rride. Defendant he Defenda was
nt wa wearing
s wea r ing aa ba
backpack
ckpa ck which made
which ma uncomfortable, her uncomfor
de her ta ble, so the 17 17
18 it. Id.
Defendant told her to hold onto it. Defendant She also Id She also told
told police that the bag belonged to the Defendant.
18
19 19 Id.
Id
20 20 C. The The Filings Filings of the Motion,
Motion, Subsequent Filings, and Subsequent Filings, andMotion Motion Hearing
Hearing
21 21 On March 15, 2024, Defendant Motion to Dismiss Defendant filed a Motion Dismiss the the Indictment
Indictmentfor
for Misj
Misjoinder
binder of
22 On March
Offenses. On March 29, 2024, the the People filed their Opposition to the the Defendant's
Defendant's Motion.
Motion. Th
The
23
24 Defendant filed a Reply to the People's Defendant Opposition on People's Opposition on April April 8,
8, 2024. On June 14, 2024, the the Cou
Coup
24
25 25 heard further oral oral arguments
arguments on the
the Motion,
Motion, and
and subsequently
subsequently placed the matter under advisement
26 26 pursuant pursuanttotoCVR CVR7. 7.l(e)(6)(D).
1 (@>(6><D).
27 27
28 28
People v. Mclntosh, Jr.,
v. McIntosh, Jr.,Criminal Case Case No. CF0343-22
CF0343-22
Decision Decision and OrderRe.
and Order Re.Defendant's
Defendant'sMotion
Motion to
to Dismiss Indictment
Indictmentfor
forMisjoinder
Misjoinder of
of Offenses
Page Page3 of8
III. 111. DISCUSSION l A. The A. The Court Court finds that Joinder
finds that Joiner of
ofOffenses
Offenses is
is appropriate.
appropriate.
2
3 The Court first turns to the turns to the charges
chargesalleged
alleged in this
this matter
matterand
andwhether
whetherjoinder
jointer of
of offenses
4 4 . . . ; . o . .
is appropriate. Accordlng to Guam appropriate. According Guam law, law, Jolnder
joinder of
of offenses
offenses isisappropriate
appropriate when
when the
the offenses
offense
5 charged "are of ofthe
the same
same or
or similar
similar character
character or based on the the same
same act
actor
ortransaction
transactionor
oron
ontwo
two(2
(2)
6
7 or or more acts or transactions transactions connected
connected together
together or
or constituting
constituting parts
parts of
of a common scheme
scheme or
or plan.'
plan."
7
8 88 GCA GCA §55.35(&).
§55.35(a).
9 The Defendant moves the Court to to dismiss
dismiss for
for misjoinder of
ofoffenses
offenses because
because the offenses
10 . . n charged are not charged are not of ofthe
the same
same or
or slmllar
similar character,
character, not
not based
based on
on the
the same
same act
act or
or transactlon,
transaction, and are
11 not part part of of a common scheme.
scheme.Def.'s
Def.'s Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss at
at 4-5
4-5 (Mar.
(Mar. 15,
15, 2024).
2024). The
TheDefendant
Defendant argues
argue
12 12
13 13 that "the that "the only similarity identifiable identifiable from
from the
the allegations
allegations in
in the
the Indictment Defendant." Id.
Indictment is the Defendant."
14 14 at 5.
5. Defendant Defendant asserts thatthe asserts that thesecond
secondcharge,
charge,Criminal
CriminalMischief
Mischief(As
(As aaThird
Third Degree
Degree Felony),
Felony), is
15 15 ofaa different of different character character than
thanthe
theother charges.Id.
othercharges. Id.atat5.5.Additionally, Charge Two does Additionally, Charge does not not have
16 16 any any overlapping evidence evidence with
withthe
the other
other charges
charges in
in the
the indictment. Id. at 5.
17 17 The People
People oppose
oppose that
that motion,
motion, arguing
arguing that
that all four
four charges
charges in
in the
the indictment stem from
18 18
19 19 the same investigation.
the same Opp'n. At 4 (Mar People's Opp'n.
investigation.People's (Mar 29, 29, 2024).
2024). The
ThePeople
Peopledo
donot
notdispute
dispute that
tha
20 20 Two occurred Charge Two occurred on on aa different
different date
date than charges. Id.
than the other charges. Id. However, the People argue argu
21 that the theinvestigation
investigation for Charge Two was open Two was open when
when the
the investigation forthe investigation for the other other charges
charges began.
22 Id. Additionally, thePeople Additionally,the Peoplestate statethat
that the
the arresting
arresting officer
officerwas
wasthe
thesame
samefor
forall
allthe
thecharges
chargesand
and that
tha
23 23 24 share aamaterial the charges share witness. Id.
material witness. Id.
24
25 8 GCA §§55.35 8 GCA 55.35 originates
originates from
from the
the Federal Rules of
Federal Rules of Criminal Criminal Procedure Rule 8.See Procedure Rule 8. See Note,
26 26 8 GCA §§55.35.
8 GCA 55.35. Therefore, Therefore,the
theCourt
Courtmay
may tum
turn to federal cases
to federal guidance in for guidance
cases for in interpreting interpreting related
relate
27 27 u I . .
local statutes. local Benavente v.
statutes. See Benavente v. Taitano, 2006 Guam Guam 15.
15. Trlal
Trialcourts
courtshave
havebroad
broadd1scret10n
discretion in
28 28
People People v.
v. Mclntosh,
McIntosh, Jr.,
Jr., Criminal
CriminalCase
Case No.
No. CF0343-22
CF0343-22
Decision Decision and Re. Defendant's Motion and Order Re. Motion to Dismiss Indictment Indictmentfor
for Misjoinder
Misjoinder of Offenses
Page 4 ofof8
deciding deciding severance severance of trials.
trials. US
US v.v. Reavis,
Reavis, 48 F.3d
F.3d 763,
763,767 (4th Cir. 1995).
1995). In
In determining
determinin
l
2 whether offenses are properly joined, courts courts traditionally consider "whether "whether the
the charges
charges are laid
3 under the the same
samestatute,
statute,whether
whetherthey
theyinvolve
involvesimilar
similar victims,
victims, locations, or modes of ofoperation,
operation, and
an
4 . . . .
the time tlme frame frame in which
whlch the
thecharged
chargedconduct
conductoccurred."
occurred."US Taylor, 54 US v. Taylor, 54 F.3d
F.3d 967,
967, 973 (1st. Cir.
(let. C1r.
5 1995) (citations 1995) citations omitted).
omitted). Further,
Further,"the validityof
"thevalidity of the
the joinder is determined jointer is determined solely th solely by the
6
allegations in the indictment."
indictment." United
United States
States v. Jawara, 474
474 F.3d 565, 572 (9th
565, 572 (9th Cir.
Cir. 2007).
2007). Some
7
8 factors that may may be
be considered
considered are
arethe elementsof
theelements of the
theoffenses,
offenses, the
the temporal
temporal proximity
proximity of the acts,
9 overlapping evidence, and overlapping and logical relation relation of
offacts.
facts. Id at574,
Idat 574, 578.
578. "Where
"Wherethere
thereisissubstantial
substantia
10 in evidence between
overlap in between two offenses, offenses, jointer
joindereliminates
eliminatesthe
theneed
need to
to prove
provesubstantially
substantially the
11 same evidence same evidence twice twice over, thus
thusrealizing
realizing precisely
precisely the
the kind
kindof
of economy
economy envisaged
envisagedby
byRule
Rule 8(a).'
8(a)."
12
13 v. United
Howerton v. United States, States, 964 A.2d 1282,
1282, 1292 (D.C. 2009).
i4 14 Here, Here, the Court looks to the the underlying
underlying allegations
allegations in determining whetherjoinder determining whether jointer is 15 appropriate in this case.
case. The
The event which
which forms the basis
basis of
ofCharges
Charges One,
One, Three,
Three, and
and Four
Four that led
16 16 to the Defendant's arrest arrest on
on May
May 20,
20, 2022,
2022,took
tookplace
placefifteen
fifteen (15)
(15) days from the
the event on May
May 5,
17 17 2022, the events upon 2022, when the upon which which the
the Second
Second Charge
Charge occurred.
occurred. The
The Court finds that the
the time-
18 18
19 19 period between events eventsweighs
weighsin
infavor
favorofjoinder.
ofjoinder.See
See US.
US v.
v. Rodgers,
Rodgers, 732 F.2d 625,629 629(8th
(8th Cir.
Cir.
20 1984)
1984) (after (after examining prior cases cases where
wherejoinder
jointer was
was affirmed
affirmed for
for offenses
offenses occurring
occurring during
during time
21 periods including eight months, months,two-years,
two-years, and
andfive
five months,
months,finding
finding "the
"the time-period
time-period factor period 22 22 is to be be determined
determined on a case-by-case approach, there is approach; there is no
no per se
se rule
rule on when the
the time period
23
24 between similar offenses is so great great that they
they may
may not be
be joined.").
joined."). The
TheCourt
Court also
also finds
finds that,
that, as
a
24
25 25 contained within within the Complaint,
Complaint, aa nexus of fact fact relates
relates both
both events
events together
togetherthat
that constitute
constitute a similar
simila
26 character. Both events character. Both events involve involve similar
similar characteristics
characteristicsofofalleged allegedefforts
efforts and
and to
to avoid law
la
27 27 enforcement. May 5, the enforcement. On May the Defendant Defendant is
is alleged
alleged to
to have
have "aggressively drove
drove around the yard'
around the yard"
28
People People v. Mclntosh,
McIntosh, .b'.,
Jr., Criminal Case No.
No. CF0343-22
Decision Decision and Re. Defendant's and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Indictment for
for Misjoinder
Misjoinder of Offenses
Page 5 of
of8
Magis. Comal.
after Patricio announced the presence of law enforcement. See Declaration, Maris. (Ma Compl. (May
I
22 21, 2022). The Defendant 2022). The Defendant narrowly narrowly missed marshal colliding with the other vehicles and the marshals missed colliding
3 vehicles. Id.
standing next to their vehicles. blue Ford Patricio's blue
sideswiped Marshal Patricio's eventually sideswiped
Id Defendant evenhlally
4 . .
Explorer, after which Explorer, after whlch the fled the Defendant fled
the Defendant scene. Id.
the scene. Guam pollce 20, Guam
May 20,
Id On May observed two police observed
5 motorcycles traveling at a high rate of speed on traveling at Route l.
on Route Id Other motorists were observed having 1. Id
6 7 to avoid to break or swerve to Police attempted colliding with the motorcycles. Id Police avoid colliding traffic stop, attempted aa traffic bu stop, but
7
88 of the motorcycles, operated by the Defendant, the motorcycles did not stop. Police observed one of
9 stopped near a house house where
where the
the Defendant on foot.
fled on
occupant fled
other occupant
and the other
Defendant and foot. Id polic The police Id The
stopped near 10 apprehended the other apprehended the identified asas aa female occupant identified
other occupant juvenile, and female juvenile, the Defendant and the wa
Defendant was
11 struggling with
apprehended after struggling police. Id.
with police. nexus of common nexus
The common
Id The fact between the two events, of fact
12
13 1 specifically the Defendant's alleged aggressive Defendant's alleged driving and aggressive driving alleged fleeing from law enforcement, and alleged
14 14 constitute a similar character sufficient sufficient for
for aa joinder
jointer of
of offenses.
15 15 Finally, the People are connected People assert that the events are ongoing investigation connected by an ongoing tha investigation that
16 16 May5,5, specifically
began on May conducted by specifically conducted police officer by aa police investigated the event on May 5 officer who investigated
17 17 on May
and who made the eventual arrest on 20. Opp'n May 20. at 4. The Defendant argues in his Reply that Opp'n at
18 18
19 19 55.35. See such a fact alone does not satisfy the requirements set forth by Section 55.35. Def.'s Reply at See Def.'s
20 20 1-2 (Apr.
(Apr. 8, 2024).
2024). The Court while the that, while
finds that,
Court finds ongoing investigation the ongoing would not investigation would alon not alone
21 sufficiently merit a jointer sufficiently merit ofoffenses, joinder of the circumstances offenses, the and common circumstances and characteristics of the common characteristics
22 22 alleged incidences, the proximity in time between events, together with the ongoing investigation 23 23 24 connecting requirements of Section to the two events satisfy the requirements connecting to 55.35(a). As Section 55.35(a). such, joinder As such, jointer is
24
25 25 appropriate in this case.
26 26
27 27
28 28
People v, Mclntosh, Jr.,
v. McIntosh, Jr., Criminal Case No.
No. CF0343-22
Decision Decision and
and Order Re.
Re. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Indictment for
for Misjoinder
Misjoinder of Offenses
Page 6 of
of8
B. B. The Court finds The Court that aaJoinder finds that Joiner of
ofOffenses
Offenses is
is not Unduly Prejudicial not Unduly Prejudicial
l
2 The Court Court next
next turns to whether
turns to whether a jointer joinder ofofoffenses
offenses would
wouldunduly
unduly prejudice
prejudice the
th
3 Defendant. Guam law Defendant. Guam law provides provides that
that the
the court
courthas
hasdiscretion
discretiontotogrant
grantseverance
severanceofofoffenses
offenses"if
"if it
4 . . . . .
appears thataadefendant appears that defendantororthe thegovernment
governmentis is prejudiced prejudiced bybya joinder
a Jolnder
of of offenses..."
offenses ... " 88GCA
GCA §
5 65.35. 65.35 originates 65.35. Section 65.35 originatesfrom from Federal
Federal Rules
Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 14, 14, see Note, 88
6
GCA GCA §§ 65.35, 65.35, thus
thus federal
federal case law is
case law is instructive
instructive here
here as
as before.
before. See Benavente, 2006 Guam 15.
See Benavente,
7
8 8 Althoughjoinder Althoughjoindermay maybe
beproper,
proper,severance
severancemay
may still
stillbe
berequired
required ififthe
the defendant
defendant or
or the governmen
government
99 is is prejudiced by such prejudiced by such joinder.
jointer. See US v.
See US. v. Caldwell,
Cardwell, 433
433 F.3d 378 (4th Cir.
Cir. 2005).
2005). "Such
"Such cases,
cases
10 however, will however, willbe rare. ItIt isis not berare. not enough enough for
for the
the defendant
defendant to show that severance offers offers him a 'better
I 1I chance of chance acquittal." Id.
ofacquittal."' Id
12 12
13 13 The Defendant argues that that if
if the Court finds that ajoinder is appropriate, jointer is appropriate, the the Court
Court should
shoul
14 14 alternatively order severance of order severance ofeach
each of
ofthe
the charges.
charges. The
TheDefendant
Defendant argues
argues that
that if
ifthe
the charges
charges are
15 15 not severed into into separate trials,he
separate trials, hewill
will be prejudiced by the prejudiced by the misjoinder misjoinder of charges. Mot. at 5.
charges. Mot.
16 16 Defendant Defendant claims that that without
without severance,
severance, evidence
evidence that
that would otherwise be inadmissible inadmissible in a
17 17 separate trial will separate trial will be be placed before the
the jury, raising
raising concerns
concerns that the jury
that the jury would not be able able to
18
19 19 "compartmentalize the evidence." Id Id at
at 6.
6. The
The People
Peoplecounter
counter that
that well-defined
well-defined jury
jury instructions
instruction
20 will cure cure any concernsof
any concerns of prejudice.
prejudice. Opp'nat4.
'n at 4.The
ThePeople
Peoplefurther
furtherstate
statethat
that jury instructions wil will
21 explain to the jury jury how they
they may
may review
review the evidence for
for each
each charge. Id.
charge. Id.
22 The Court generally includes includes the following
followinginstruction
instruction when
when aa Defendant
Defendant is
is charged with
charged wit
23 23 24 multiple offenses in the multiple offenses the same same charging
charging document:
document: "A separate
separate crime
crime is
is charged
charged against
against the
th
24
25 25 Defendant in each Charge.
Charge. You
You must decide
decide each Charge
Charge separately.
separately. Your
Your verdict on
on one Charge
26 26 should not control should not control your your verdict
verdict on any
any other
other Charge."
Charge."See
See People v.
v. Jung,
Jung, 2001 Guam
Guam 15
15 at ,r
at1125
27 I . . . I . . .
Gury instructions, (fury instructions, as part of the the wrltten
written Closlng
ClosingJury
JuryInstructIons,
Instructions, that
that instructed
instructed to consider the to conslder
28
People People v.
v. Mclntosh,
McIntosh, .h'.,
Jr., Criminal
Criminal Case
Case No. CF0343-22
CF0343-22
Decision Decision and OrderRe.
and Order Re. Defendant's Defendant'sMotion to to Dismiss Indictment Indictmentfor
forMisjoinder
Misjoinderof
of Offenses
Page 7 of8
charges countsseparately and counts
charges and astotothe separatelyas issueof theissue insanity,were ofinsanity, sufficient for aa jury to were sufficient separate!
to separately
1
2 consider each charge);
charge), see also Ninth
Ninth Circuit ofModel Manual of
Circuit Manual CriminalJury ModelCriminal Instructions 6.11l.
Jury Instructions
3 The Court Court finds finds that
that including
including this prejudice potential prejudice,
any potential
cure any
to cure
sufficient to
instruction is sufficient this instruction
4 especially especially when when the
the language is carefully withinput crafted with
carefully crafted from the input from See People v. Aguon, the parties.See
5 24,i,i
2020 Guam 24 W 27-28 instruction that were crafted curative jury instruction issued curative
27-28 (trial court appropriately issued 6 6
with the consultation andactive consultation and participationfrom active participation theparties).
from the Moreover, any parties).Moreover, prejudic any risk of prejudice
7
8 can be cured by issuing cured by issuing proper
properjury
jury limiting presumedto is presumed
jury is
"thejury as"the
instructions, as
limiting instructions, tofollow th follow the
9 jury instructions." Id 'H July as ,i 30; see also Zafiro v.
see also v. United s. 534, 540 (1993)
States, 506 U.S.
United States, (citatio (1993) (citation
10 10 omitted). Thus, the Defendant Defendant fails to establish subject to be subject
he will be
that he
establish that undue prejudice to undue th
prejudice if the
11 charges are not severed.
12 12
13 l3 Iv. IV. CONCLUSION
14 14 For For the above reasons, Defendant'sMotion theDefendant's
reasons, the to Dismiss Motion to Indictmentfor Dismiss Indictment Misjoinder of for Misjoinder of
15 15 Offenses is DENIED.
16 16 Notice Noticeof
ofnew
newtrial
trialdates
dates in
inthis
this matter shall be forthcoming.
matter shall
17 17 SO ORDERED this 12th day
day of September.
18 18
19 19 u 20 20 HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON Judge, Judge, Superior Court of Guam Guam
21
22 22 senvlcl Sl!IIVICI!vIA
VIAe4nAII.
l!-MAIL
acknowledge ma! • ·acknowledge thaf an an electvoruc
ele'ctron,c
23 23 (any COP) of
ofthe
theongmgl
or1g1ria•was e vwmlea
wa1e ro
,.,a,1eato
24 24 /4, I /*b-dl ;96" f-it(
P,,-(/( .f,-.i-1~
25 OateP/·/J,·J.t/ Date r,me.1;~,._, q'/Z'l'/ flme. 3 =0?»~.
26 26 I7/LM I1/aéf~ /1l/,'4 a/lu M Deputy clerk Supefuor Deputy clerk. Supe,,or Court C.ourt of
of Guam
Guam
27 27
28 28
People People v. Mclntosh,
McIntosh, Jr., Criminal Case Jr., Criminal Case No.
No. CF0343-22
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to Dismiss Indictment Indictment for
for Misjoinder
Misjoinder of Offenses
Page 8 of
of8