People v. Mendiola

Opinion

i."

FE gt 1 LED 1

:CLERI< OF COURT t . §?ii§€. 5? §§=é5?€*T 11

2 2025 FEB 2925 FEW 27 ZN AM 181 40 fO: QT I I

3 ggpgglgg 5Uf'ERi0'ttUGU&T COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM .Q OF Hz l%Uj!\~4 .ah *;L4~'%§i5§

4 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0109-24 5 GPD Report Nos. 24-03889 24-03889 /I v. 24-03672 6

7 DOMINGO CHARGUALAF MENDIOLA (aka DOMINGO SYLVESTER CHARGUALAF MENDIOLA) DECISION DECISION AND ORDER 8 (aka DING), GRANTING THE PEOPLE'S PEOPLE'S DOB: 07/15/1987 MOTION MOTION FOR RELIEF 9 Defendant. 10

11 INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Honorable Honorable Alberto Alberto C. C. Lamorena, Lamorena, III III on on February February 14, 14, 2025 for 13 hearing on the People of Guam's ("the People's") People's") Motion Motion for for Relief Relief ("Motion"). Special Special Assistant Assistant 14 Attorney 14 Attorney General General Curtis Curtis Van De Veld represents the People, and Attorney Marsil Johnson represents

15 Domingo Cha r gua Chargualaf Mendiola Mendiola (aka Domingo Sylvester Sylvester Char gualaf Mendiola) Chargualaf Mendiola) (aka Ding) 16 ("Defendant"). Having Havingduly dulyconsidered consideredthe theparties' parties'briefs, briefs, oral oral arguments, arguments, and and the the applicable applicable law, 17 issues the 17 the Court now issues the following following Decision Decision and and Order Order and and GRANTS GRANTS the the People's People's Motion.

18 BACKGROUND

19 19 Defendant Defendant is indicted indicted on Charge One: Aggravated Murder (as (as a let pt Degree Felony) with 20 Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Deadly Weapon in the Commission Commission of of a Felony, Charge 21 Two: First Degree Robbery (as st Degree Felony) with Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a (as a 1st Degree Felony) with Allegation: or Use of a 22 Deadly Weapon Weapon in in the Commission Commission of ofaa Felony, Felony, Charge Charge Three: Three: Conspiracy Conspiracy to Commit Commit Robbery (as st Degree Felony), 23 a 1st Degree Felony), Charge Four: Theft of of a Motor Motor Vehicle Vehicle (as 2 nd Degree Felony), (as aa 2"d Felony), Charge Charge Five Five:: 24 Possession of aSchedule Schedulell IIControlled ControlledSubstance Substance(as 3rd Degree (asaa3'd Degree Felony), Felony), Charge Charge Six Six (Two Counts): 25 Possession of of a Firearm Firearm Without Without aa Firearms Firearms Identification Identification Card Card (as 3rd Degree Felony), Charge (as aa 3rd 26 Seven: Destruction of of Evidence (as (as a Misdemeanor), and Charge Charge Eight: Violation Violation of of aa Court Court Order Order 27 (as a Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). See Second Second Superseding Superseding Indictment Indictment (Nov. (Nov. 26, 26, 2024). 28

Decision Decision and Order Granting Granting the thePeople's People'sMotion Motion for for Relief Relief CF0109-24, CF0109-24, People People of ofGuam v. v. Domingo Domingo ChargualafMendiola Page Page 1 ofof5 i

1 1 shooting on The charges stem from a deadly shooting on February February 14, 14, 2024. See Magistrate's Complaint 2 2 (Feb. 20, 2024). Defendant allegedly 2024). Defendant allegedly fatally fatally shot Sumatra Sumittra Lairopi ("Victim") outside outside the Thai Thai Restaurant in 3 Restaurant in Tamuning, Tamuning, before before taking taking off off with with the Victim's car. car. Id. Guam Police Police Department Department officers located 4 officers located the the Victim's Victim's car near Defendant's house, and found methamphetamine inside the

5 vehicle. Id.

6 Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine performed the Victim's autopsy, and Victim's autopsy, and the People intend intend to call him as an expert-witness during 7 expert-witness during their their case-in-chief. See People's People's Third Third Amended Amended Witness Witness List List (Oct. (Oct. 21, 2024). Dr. 8 2024). Dr.Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine Nine sewed servedasas the the licensed licensed Medical Medical Examiner Examiner of of Guam from November November 2022

til May 9 until May 2024, 2024, when when he moved moved from from Guam to Ohio. See Declaration Declaration of of Dr. Jeffrey Nine (Jan. (Jan. 23, 10 2025). 10 2025). This Thismove movewas wasdone donesosothat thatDr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine Ninecould couldassist assist his his wife and and son, who are each 11 ndergoingcontinuous ll undergoing continuousmedical medicaltreatments treatments in Ohio. Id. Due to these circumstances, Dr. Jeffrey 12 Nine 12 inecannot cannottravel travel to to Guam Guam for for purposes of of giving testimony without endangering his wife and son's ongoing 13 son's ongoing medical medical care care and treatment. treatment. Id. l

14 14 January 23, On January 23, 2025, 2025, the the People People filed filed their Motion for their Motion for Relief. Relief. The The People People request request that that Dr. Dr. 15 Jeffrey 15 JeffreyNine Ninebebepermitted permittedtotoprovide provideremote remotetestimony, testimony,either eitherby by means means of oflive, two-way, audio-video 16 telecommunication 16 telecommunication or or by by deposition deposition in in Ohio, Ohio, the the latter latter of of which which would would require require aa lengthy lengthy trial trial continuance. 17 continua See Motion i o n at 11-4 - ( (Jan. Ja 223, 3 , 2 2025). 025) The he PPeople eop pprefer r ef er aan n a uaudio-video dio- video

telecommunication 18 t elecommunica ion method hod over aa deposit deposition beca use of tthe ma because ny cha many llenges involved challenges involved wit with 19 transferring transferringthe theDefendant, Defendant,his hisattorney, attorney, and and aa security security team to/from Ohio. Id. at 3-4. 20 On January 28, 2025, 2025, Defendant Defendant filed filed his his Opposition Opposition to to the the People's People's Motion ("Opposition").

21 Defendant Defendant challenges the necessity of of any remote testimony, testimony, claiming claiming itit serves serves no important important public policyand 22 policy andwas wasrequested requested merely merely for for convenience. See Opposition at 3-4 (Jan. (Jan. 28, 28, 2025). 2025). Defendant

23 also also claims the People People failed failed to to assure assure reliability reliability of of telecommunication telecommunication testimony because because the 24 procedure procedure requested requested is is too too vague. vague. Id. at 5-6. 5-6. Defendant Defendant also also challenges challenges the the People's People's proposed proposed 25 alternative deposition of Dr. Jeffrey Nine, claiming this would would violate violate his his right right to to aa public public trial and 26 unjustifiably delay delay his his trial. trial. Id. l at 6-8.

27 The Court held a hearing on February 14, 2025. After hearing the arguments arguments of of the parties, the 28 Court took the matter under under advisement. advisement.

Decision and Order Order Granting Granting the thePeople's People'sMotion Motion for for Relief Relief CFOl09-24, CF0109-24, People of of Guam v. Domingo Chargua!afMendiola v. Domingo Chargualaf Page 2 of5 S *t

1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Preliminary Law: 3 The Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

4 right ight ... to be confronted confronted with the witnesses witnesses against him". See U.S. Const. amend. VI. Const. amend. VI. If If applied applied 5 literally, literally,the theSixth SixthAmendment Amendmentwould wouldexclude exclude any anystatement statementmade made by by aa declarant declarant not not present present at trial. 6 However, owever, doing doing so so would would nullify nullify virtually virtually every every hearsay hearsay exception, exception, so so Courts Courts have long rejected this 7 blanket lank.et view view of ofthe the Confrontation Confrontation Clause Clause as "too extreme". extreme". See Ohio v. v. Roberts, Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 56, 63 8 (1980). (1980). 9 Rather, Courts have Rather, Courts have specifically focused on specifically focused on "the right right of ofcross-examination", which is cross-examination", which 10 recognized ecognizedas as the the "primary "primary interest interest secured" by the Sixth Amendment. See Douglas v. v. Alabama, Alabama, 380

ll 11 U.S..S.415, 415,418, 418,85 85S.ct. S.Ct.1074, 1074,1076, 1076,13 13 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 934 934 (1965). (1965). "The "TheConfrontation Confrontation Clause Clause reflects reflects a 12 preference reference for face-to-face confrontationatattrial" face-to-face confrontation trial"during duringsaid saidcross-examination. cross-examination.Id. Q at 1076. 1076. This is

13 because ecause aa face-to-face face-to-face confrontation confrontation provides the accused not only only an opportunity opportunity to to test test aa witness's witness's

14 memory, emory, but but also also for for the the jury to to gauge gauge the the witness's witness's demeanor demeanor on on the the stand stand and and determine determine whether 15 their heir testimony testimony is is worthy worthy of of belief. belief. Guam Guamhas hasfollowed followedsuit, suit, and and generally generally requires requires that that witnesses witnesses 16 testify estifyin-person, in-person, in in the the defendant's defendant's presence, presence, and and before an empaneled jury. jury.

17 However, this "preference" However, this "preference"for for in-person in-person testimony testimony is is not not absolute absolute and and "must "must occasionally occasionally 18 give give way waytoto considerations considerations of of public public policy and and the necessities of of the case". See Maryland v.v. Craig, Craig,

19 497 97 U.S. U.S. 836, 836, 849 849 (1990). (1990). Even Even in in criminal criminal cases, cases, exceptions exceptions have have been been made where testimony taken 20 outside outside of ofthe the jury's jury'sphysical physicalpresence presence isis admitted admitted for their consideration. consideration. For For example, in Maryland 21 21 v.. Craig, Craig, the Supreme Court admitted testimony testimony via a one-way one-way closed closed circuit circuit television television procedure. procedure. 22 Qd.atat852. 852.InInmaking makingtheir theirruling, ruling,the theSupreme SupremeCourt Courtrecognized recognized that that "a "a defendant's defendant's right right to confront 23 accusatory accusatorywitnesses witnessesmay maybe besatisfied satisfied absent absent aa physical, physical, face-to-face face-to-face confrontation confrontation at trial only where 24 denial denial of ofsuch such confrontation confrontation is is necessary necessary to to further further an important important public policy and only where the 25 reliability eliability of of the testimony testimony is is otherwise otherwiseassured." assured." Id. Q at at 850. 850. 26 Courts have applied the two-part analysis of Craig to two-way, remote video testimony such

27 as as the the one one requested here. See United States v.v. Carter, requested here. Carter,907 F.3d 1199, 1199, 1206 1206 (9th Cir. Cir. 2018) 2018) ["We ["We now

28 make akeclear clear that that aa defendant's defendant's right right to to physically physicallyconfront confrontan anadverse adverse witness witness (whether (whether child child or or adult)

Decision Decision and Order Granting Granting the thePeople's People'sMotion Motion for for Relief Relief CF0109-24, People of Guam Guam v.v.Domingo DomingoChargualaf ChargualafMendiola Page 3 of 5 c 1 r

cannot be 1 cannot be compromised by by permitting permitting the thewitness witnesstototestify testifyby byvideo video (whether (whetherone-way one-wayor ortwo-way) two-way)

2 unless Craig's Craig's standard standard isis satisfied."]. satisfied."]. This Thistwo-part two-part test test isis applied applied on on aacase-by-case case-by-case basis. basis. See 3 People eople v. v. Coulthard, Cal.App.5 th 743, 772 (Cal. Ct. Coulthard, 90 Cal.App.5'h Ct. App. 6th 2023). App. 6th 4 II. Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine Nine may may testify testify remotely remotely via via live, live, two-way, two-way, audio-video audio-video telecommunication telecommunication 5 without without violating violatingDefendant's Defendant'sConfrontation ConfrontationClause Clauserights rightsbecause because remote remote testimony is 6 necessary necessary totofurther further the the important important state interest interest of of public public health, health, and and reliability reliability of the

7 testimony is is otherwise otherwise assured. 8 Here, Here, the the critical critical inquiries are: (1) inquiries are: (1) whether the procedure whether the of taking procedure of taking Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine's 9 testimony estimonyremotely remotelyisisnecessary necessaryto tofurther furtheran an important important state interest, interest, and andif if so, so, (2) whether testimony

10 obtained through 10 obtained through a live, two-way, audio-video audio-video telecommunication telecommunication is otherwise assured assuredreliable. reliable. The

11 ll People bear eople bearthe theburden burdenof ofproving provingboth bothof ofthese these inquiries inquiries in the the affirmative. affirmative. See People v. Coulthard,

12 12 90 Cal.App.5 th 743, 90 Cal.App.5'h 743, 774 774 (Cal. Ct. Ct. App. 6th 2023). App.6th 2023).

13 13 Regarding the necessity prong of theCraig analysis, the People Peoplehave havemet mettheir theirburden burden as taking taldng

14 Dr.r. Jeffrey 14 Jeffrey Nine's Nine'stestimony testimonyremotely remotelyisisnecessary necessarytotofurther furtherthe theimportant important state state interest interest of of public public 15 15 health. ealth. See Selkin v. State Selkin v. State Boardfor Board for Professional Professional Medical Medical Conduct,63 F.Supp.2d F.Supp.2d397,402 397, 402(S.D.N.Y. (S.D.N.Y.

16 1999) 1999) (holding (holdingthat that states states have an important importantinterest interestinin"protecting "protectingthe thehealth healthof ofits itscitizens"). citizens").

17 Here, Here, Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine's Nine's testimony testimony is is critical critical to to the the People's People'scase casebecause because he he personally personally 18 18 performed erformed the the autopsy autopsy on Victim. However, However,Dr. Dr.Jeffrey JeffreyNine Ninegave gavesworn swornstatements statements about about how his 19 19 wife ifeand andson sonare are both both undergoing significant significant medical medical treatments week in Ohio. See treatments multiple times per week Declaration of 20 Declaration of Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine Nine (Jan. (Jan. 23, 2025). Due to 2025). Due to their their health issues,Dr. health issues, Dr.Jeffrey JeffreyNine's Nine's wife wife

21 and and son son both both require require his his physical physical presence presence and and continual assistance in their assistance in their medical battles. Id. This

22 physical hysical presence and assistance presence and assistancewould wouldbe behalted haltedfor forseveral severalcritical criticaldays daysifif Dr. Dr. Jeffrey Jeffrey Nine Nine were

23 forced orced to to physically physically testify testify in in Guam. Guam. Guam Guam isis over over7,500 7,500 miles ~iles from from Ohio, Ohio, resulting resulting in in significant significant 24 travel raveltime timebetween betweenthe the two two locations. locations. Because Becausehis his presence presence is indefinitely needed needed in Ohio, Dr. Jeffrey 25 Nine inecannot cannot physically physically testify testifyin inGuam Guam without without endangering endangering the health of several family members. members. 26 However, owever, his his testimony testimony remains critical for remains critical for the the People's case. case. Therefore, this this testimony testimony must must 27 necessarily ecessarilybe betaken taken remotely remotelyto tofurther further the the important important state state interest of public health. health. 28

Decision Decision and Order Order Granting Grantingthe thePeople's People'sMotion Motionfor for Relief Relief CFOl09-24, People of CF0109-24, People of Guam v. v. Domingo ChargualafMendiola Mendiola Page 4 of 5 / -'):~!' "' ..v.~ .,;,;"

.I "{

1 As for the reliability prong of the Craig analysis, the People have also met their burden in

2 assuring that testimony received via live, two-way, audio-video telecommunication is reliable. This 3 rocedure preserves elements critical to the confrontation clause, which have a combined effect of

4 ensuring reliability of the evidence. For example, any such telecommunication testimony will be

5 aken under an oath of truth, and Dr. Jeffrey Nine has expressed his understanding and willingness to 6 e this oath. See Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Nine (Jan. 23, 2025). Any telecommunication testimony

7 ill also be subject to contemporaneous cross-examination, and Defendant will be given just as much

8 freedom to cross-examine Dr. Jeffrey Nine as ifhe were to testify physically in Guam. Furthermore,

9 he judge, jury, and Defendant will all be able to view the demeanor and body language of Dr. Jeffrey

10 ine as he testifies. Although Dr. Jeffrey Nine won't be physically present, jurors will retain the

11 ability to look Dr. Jeffrey Nine in his eyes as he testifies, judge his demeanor on the stand and the 12 anner in which he testifies, and ultimately determine whether his testimony is worthy of belief.

13 CONCLUSION

14 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the People's Motion. Dr. Jeffrey Nine is

15 permitted to testify remotely via live, two-way, audio-video telecommunication because this remote 16 testimony is necessary to further the important state interest of public health, and this method of

17 testifying is otherwise assured reliable.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED this Feb. 27, 2025

20 21 22 23 ,•

SERVICE VIA EMAIL 24 I acknowledge that an eleclroii/c HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III copy of the original was e-mailed to: Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 25 26 27

Decision and Order Granting the People's Motion for Relief CF0109-24, People of Guam v. Domingo Chargualaf Mendiola Page5 of5