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.
18
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
28
Decision and Order Granting the People's Motion for Relief CF0109-24, People of Guam v. Domingo Chargualaf Mendiola Page5 of5