People v. Mendiola

Opinion

FILED SUPERIOR COURT 1 Of GUAM

2 2021 SEP 23 ~ 12: 49 3 COURT 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0245-20 7 GPD Report No. 20-11619 v. 8 DECISION AND ORDER JUAN FAISAO MENDIOLA, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN 9 aka John F. Mendiola LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CASTLE DOB: 07/0411963 DOCTRINE PRESUMPTION FOR 10 ALLEGED VICTIM 11 Defendant.

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter carne before the Honorable Alberto C. Larnorena, III on August 30, 2021 for

15 hearing on Defendant Juan Faisao Mendiola's (aka John F. Mendiola's) ("Defendant's") Motion In 16 Limine To Exclude Castle Doctrine Presumption for Alleged Victim ("Motion"). Assistant

17 Attorney General Sean Brown represents the People, and Attorneys Joseph Razzano and Joshua 18 Walsh represent Defendant. Having duly considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the 19 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order and GRANTS Defendant's 20 Motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Defendant is charged with Murder (as a First Degree Felony) and Aggravated Assault (as a

23 2nd Degree Felony). Indictment (Jul. 27, 2020). Each charge is accompanied by a Special

24 Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. Id. Defendant 25 is accused of murdering Peter John Tadeo Rios Jr. ("Victim") by shooting him with a handgun. 26 Magistrate's Complaint (May 6, 2020). The shooting occurred in Claire Siguenza's apartment, 27 where Victim had temporarily been staying. Defendant claims he acted in self-defense after Victim 28 pulled a knife on him. Motion at 3 (Aug. 25, 2021).

Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Castle Doctrine Presumption for Alleged Victim CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 1 of3 1 On August 20, 2021, the People submitted its Proposed Supplemental Jury Instructions. 2 Page 11 of the proposed instructions contain an excerpt from Guam's Castle Doctrine Act, as 3 codified in 9 G.C.A. §7 Art. 5. It is anticipated that the People seek to offer this instruction as an 4 attempt to justify Victim's use of the knife, and simultaneously defeat Defendant's self-defense

5 claim. 6 On August 25, 2021, Defendant submitted his Motion in Limine to Exclude Castle Doctrine 7 Presumption for Alleged Victim. Defendant claims the Castle Doctrine instruction is misplaced 8 because the shooting occurred just outside the residence, and because the Victim was engaged in

9 criminal activity at the time. Motion at 4-5 (Aug. 25, 2021). 10 On August 27, 2021, the People submitted their Opposition to Defendant's Motion 11 ("Opposition"). The People argued the Castle Doctrine applied because Defendant was an 12 uninvited intruder. Opposition at 2 (Aug. 27, 2021). The People further argued that the Castle 13 Doctrine's "criminal activity" limitation does not apply here because the residence was not being 14 used for criminal activity and Victim was not actively engaged in any criminal activity at the time

15 of the altercation. ld. at 2-3. 16 The Court held a hearing on August 30, 2021. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the

17 Court took the matter under advisement.

18 DISCUSSION

19 Under Guam's Castle Doctrine Act:

20 (a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that 21 is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to another if: 22 (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of 23 unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a ... residence . . . or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another 24 against that person's will from the ... residence ... ; and 25 (2) The person who uses defense force knew or had reason to believe that an 26 unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 27

28 9 G.C.A. §7.112(a)(1)-(2).

Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Castle Doctrine Presumption for Alleged Victim CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 2 of3 1 However, "the presumption ... does not apply if ... the person who uses defensive force is 2 engaged in criminal activity or is using the ... residence ... to further a criminal activity." 9 G.C.A. 3 §7.112(b)(2). The intent behind the Castle Doctrine is for "law-abiding people to protect 4 themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution." 9 5 G.C.A. §7.111 (emphasis added). 6 Victim cannot be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or 7 serious bodily injury under the Castle Doctrine. This is because Victim was engaged in criminal 8 activity or using the residence to further a criminal activity at the time he pulled out the knife. 9 Evidence shows that residence contained ·significant amounts of illegal drugs and related drug 10 paraphernalia. See, Crime Scene Photos of Drug Activity. Furthermore, Claire Siguenza testified

11 that the drugs were not hers. The only other person in the residence at the time of the shooting was 12 Rae Ann Quidachay who testified that she was just a visitor. This means the illegal drugs must 13 have belonged to Victim. Victim's autopsy also backs up this theory, as high levels of 14 amphetamine were found in his system. The Castle Doctrine thus does not apply to Victim, and it 15 would be improper to include this proposed jury instruction.

16 CONCLUSION

17 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion. The People's 18 proposed Castle Doctrine jury instruction cannot be offered, and the People cannot use the Castle 19 Doctrine as a shortcut to prove Defendant did not act in self-defense.

20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED this Septemb er 23 ' 2021 . nunc pro tunc to August 30, 2021.

22 23 ·SERVICE VIA E·MAit I acKnowledge t~at an ele~oilic copy of the original was e-mailed to:· 24 A(,., V""· ,Walsk, 25 J. (l.c..~&V\. 0

26 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 27 28

Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Castle Doctrine Presumption for Alleged Victim CF0245-20, People of Guam v. Juan Mendiola Page 3 of3