People v. McKinney

Opinion

3 ) Criminal Case l't9lEtlft~~fl.:C PEOPLE OF GUAM ) 4 ) ) 5 ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER 6 ) ) 7 ) KENDALL NORRIS MCKINNEY, ) 8 ) Defendant. ) 9 ) ____________________________) 10

11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on the People of Guam's 12 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Excluding Defendant's Statements. The People of Guam 13 ("the People") were represented by Assistants Attorney General Gabrielle Rossi and Christine 14 Santos Tenorio. Defendant Kendall Norris McKinney ("Defendant") was represented by 15 Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr. 16 Defendant is charged with the following: (1) Burglary (as a 2nd Degree Felony); (2) 17 Theft of Property (as a 2nd Degree Felony); and (3) Theft by Receiving (as a 2nd Degree Felony) 18 (2 counts). Jury selection and trial commenced in the instant case on December 16, 2013. The 19 People move the Court to reconsider its earlier ruling relative to evidentiary objections. In 20 particular, the People argued that a statement made by the Defendant to the effect "let's go to 21 my grandma's house" testified by their witness, Robby Leon Guerrero is not hearsay, as the 22 statement is not to be used for the truth of the matter asserted. Further, the People argued that 23 the above statement was an admission by party opponent under Guam Rules of Evidence 801 24 (d). The Court ruled in favor of the Defendant's objection and the People now move to 25 reconsider pursuant to Guam Rules of Civil Procedure 60 (b). 26 Ill 27 Ill 28

ORIGINAL "A court may depart from the law of the case where: 1) the first decision was clearly 1 erroneous; 2) an intervening change in the law has occurred; 3) the evidence on remand is 2 substantially different; 4) other changed circumstances exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would 3 otherwise result. Failure to apply the doctrine of the law of the case absent one of the requisite 4 conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion." People v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ~ 40 (citing 5 People v. Hualde, 1999 Guam 3 ~ 13). 6 The Court orally denied the People's motion to reconsider. In effect, the People 7 requested that the Court's ruling be in writing, to which the Court first suggested that a 8 transcript be ordered considering the nature of such a motion during the course of trial. In any 9 event, the Court finds that the parties presented their respective arguments at length and the 10 instant motion is devoid of reason for reconsideration warranting a departure from its earlier 11 ruling. The People offer no basis to conclude that this Court's ruling is clearly erroneous, or 12 that it would otherwise result in manifest injustice. 13 The Court further informed the parties that it will still entertain evidentiary objections at 14 side bar as the trial progresses. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the People's Motion for 15 Reconsideration. 16

17 SO ORDERED this 26TH day of DECEMBER, 2013. 18

23 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA 24 Judge, Superior Court of Guam