F1LEO -~'Upr::cW-)R" v • \_i ('OL· I ,.\- iR ' <
OF IJU/\M IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0225-11 3 ) Cl_F~:< SF COUR vs. ) r;c·L 4 ) DECISION ANDORDER-~-·-·- ) ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 5 JUAN BAYONA MESA, ) DISMISS 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 ) 8 ------------------------------) 9 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on November 15,2011 10 on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Nicolas B. Barrett appeared on behalf of th 11 Government. Attorney Raymond B. Hagan represented Defendant, who was present. Havin 12 reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented and the record, the Court now issues th 13 following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Defendant is charged with criminal sexual conduct and child abuse. Defendant reques 16 dismissal as he argues that the Grand Jury was not presented with adequate competent evidenc 17 in violation of 8 GCA § 50.42 and § 50.54. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Competent Evidence 20 Defendant is charged with Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and Child Abuse 21 The Defendant moves to dismiss this case on the ground that the Government failed to provid 22 sufficient evidence to the grand jury regarding at least one essential element of each charg 23 charge. As to the CSC charge, Defendant argues that the Government failed to present evidenc 24 indicating that the Defendant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual gratification. As t 25 the abuse charge, Defendant claims that no competent evidence was presented to prove th 26 element of cruel mistreatment. 27 In opposition, the Government contends that dismissal is not warranted since the gran 28 jury heard testimony that Defendant had no other purpose for touching the breast of the victim
People v. Mesa, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0225-11 - Page I of 4 - ..
The testifying police officers stated that Defendant grabbed the victim's breast one time an 2 attempted to grab the breast again. See Government's Opposition. The police testified that, th 3 victim only avoided the second contact by blocking the Defendant's attempt and running away 4 Id. The Government also maintains that sufficient evidence was also presented to allow th 5 grand jurors to agree that the Defendant subjected the victim to cruel mistreatment. Clearly, tw 6 attempts to make physical contact with a female child's breast, where one attempt w 7 successful, is an intentional infliction of both physical and mental suffering. 8 In Guam, felony offenses are prosecuted by grand jury indictment. 8 GCA §1.15 9 During grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor is the only person authorized to present eviden 10 to the grand jury and the grand jury must receive sufficient competent evidence to support th 11 charges. 8 GCA §§50.46 and 50.42. 12 Title 8 GCA §50.42 provides in relevant part: 13 The grand jury shall receive only competent evidence but the fact that evidence which is incompetent was received by the grand jury does not 14 render the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support 15 the indictment was received by the grand jury. (2010).
16 After receiving the evidence, ''the grand jury shall find an indictment when from the evidenc 17 presented, there is reasonable cause to believe that an indictable offense has been committed an 18 that the defendant committed it." 8 GCA §50.54. "Reasonable cause amounts to evidence suc 19 that a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously enterta' 20 a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused." People v. Grajo, 1987 WL109393 at *2 (D 21 Guam App. Div. 1987) (internal citations omitted). 22 The dismissal of the indictment is considered a drastic step and is generally disfavored 23 a remedy. See us. v. Rodgers, 751 F.2d 1074, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 1985); People v. Muna, 99 24 F.2d 397 (9th Cir. 1993). Once an indictment is returned, a party challenging it bears a difficul 25 burden and must demonstrate either that any errors in the indictment process deceived the gran 26 jury, or significantly infringed upon its ability to exercise independent judgment. See Us. v. A 27 Mudarris, 695 F.2d 1182, 1185 (9 th Cir. 1983); Us. v. Wright, 667 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1982) 28 Dismissal of the indictment prior to trial based on errors in the grand jury proceedings i
People v. Mesa, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0225-11 - Page 2 of 4 - warranted only upon showing that the defendant is prejudiced by the error. Bank of Nova Scoti 2 v. Us., 487 U.S. 250, 255 (1988); see also People v. Muna, 1992 WL245624, (D. Guam App 3 Div. 1992). Prejudice is demonstrated if it can be established that the violation substantiall 4 influenced the grand jury's decision to indict or if there is grave doubt that the indictment w 5 free from substantial influence of such violations. Bank of Nova Scotia v. Us., 487 U.S. 250 6 255 (1988). 7 Having reviewed the charges, the Court must determine whether evidence was presente 8 to the grand jury sufficient to formulate reasonable cause to believe that the alleged crimes wer :''''~l ~ ~' ':,."'" :- ~tl , . : -t-'t, 9 committed ant\:fHH\><;tf~~t,;cQ~ti~d·· them. , ~ " ~ Guam law requires sufficient competen 10 evidence to support an indictment. The threshold standard is "reasonable cause to believe that a 11 indictable offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it." 8 GCA §§ 50.4 12 and 50.54 (b). Courts applying this standard have consistently interpreted competent evidence 13 evidence that a reasonable person would rely on in conducting his or her daily affairs. Se 14 People v.ljvelino,CF0435.;.01 (Super. ct. Guam October 2002) (quoting People v. Quidachay 15 815 F.2d i311, 1313 (9th Cir. 1987)). 16 In this particular case, the primary source of evidence presented to the grand j 17 consisted of the testimony of Officer J. C. Terlaje and Officer M.F. Tenorio. After reviewin 18 their respective testimony, the Court finds that the evidence presented to the grand jury w 19 sufficient to constitute reasonable cause to believe that the crime of Second Degree Crimina 20 Sexual Conduct was committed by the Defendant. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidenc 21 submitted to the grand jury that the Defendant subjected the victim to cruel mistreatment unde 22 the same notion that he touched her breast one time and attempted to touch her breast anothe 23 time. 24 Based on the above events, the Court can fmd evidence tending to provide reasonabl 25 cause to believe that Defendant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual gratification. Th 26 Court finds that the evidence tends to demonstrate that Defendant unlawfully initiated contac 27 with the victim. Due to the evidence supporting the idea that the contact was sexual, th 28 treatment of the victim was also cruel. Thus, the grand jury could have found reasonable caus
People v. Mesa, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0225-11 - Page 3 of 4 - to believe that the indictable offenses of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and Chil
2 Abuse had been committed. 3 CONCLUSION
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F1LEO -~'Upr::cW-)R" v • \_i ('OL· I ,.\- iR ' <
OF IJU/\M IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0225-11 3 ) Cl_F~:< SF COUR vs. ) r;c·L 4 ) DECISION ANDORDER-~-·-·- ) ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 5 JUAN BAYONA MESA, ) DISMISS 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 ) 8 ------------------------------) 9 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on November 15,2011 10 on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Nicolas B. Barrett appeared on behalf of th 11 Government. Attorney Raymond B. Hagan represented Defendant, who was present. Havin 12 reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented and the record, the Court now issues th 13 following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Defendant is charged with criminal sexual conduct and child abuse. Defendant reques 16 dismissal as he argues that the Grand Jury was not presented with adequate competent evidenc 17 in violation of 8 GCA § 50.42 and § 50.54. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Competent Evidence 20 Defendant is charged with Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and Child Abuse 21 The Defendant moves to dismiss this case on the ground that the Government failed to provid 22 sufficient evidence to the grand jury regarding at least one essential element of each charg 23 charge. As to the CSC charge, Defendant argues that the Government failed to present evidenc 24 indicating that the Defendant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual gratification. As t 25 the abuse charge, Defendant claims that no competent evidence was presented to prove th 26 element of cruel mistreatment. 27 In opposition, the Government contends that dismissal is not warranted since the gran 28 jury heard testimony that Defendant had no other purpose for touching the breast of the victim
People v. Mesa, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0225-11 - Page I of 4 - ..
The testifying police officers stated that Defendant grabbed the victim's breast one time an 2 attempted to grab the breast again. See Government's Opposition. The police testified that, th 3 victim only avoided the second contact by blocking the Defendant's attempt and running away 4 Id. The Government also maintains that sufficient evidence was also presented to allow th 5 grand jurors to agree that the Defendant subjected the victim to cruel mistreatment. Clearly, tw 6 attempts to make physical contact with a female child's breast, where one attempt w 7 successful, is an intentional infliction of both physical and mental suffering. 8 In Guam, felony offenses are prosecuted by grand jury indictment. 8 GCA §1.15 9 During grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor is the only person authorized to present eviden 10 to the grand jury and the grand jury must receive sufficient competent evidence to support th 11 charges. 8 GCA §§50.46 and 50.42. 12 Title 8 GCA §50.42 provides in relevant part: 13 The grand jury shall receive only competent evidence but the fact that evidence which is incompetent was received by the grand jury does not 14 render the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support 15 the indictment was received by the grand jury. (2010).
16 After receiving the evidence, ''the grand jury shall find an indictment when from the evidenc 17 presented, there is reasonable cause to believe that an indictable offense has been committed an 18 that the defendant committed it." 8 GCA §50.54. "Reasonable cause amounts to evidence suc 19 that a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously enterta' 20 a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused." People v. Grajo, 1987 WL109393 at *2 (D 21 Guam App. Div. 1987) (internal citations omitted). 22 The dismissal of the indictment is considered a drastic step and is generally disfavored 23 a remedy. See us. v. Rodgers, 751 F.2d 1074, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 1985); People v. Muna, 99 24 F.2d 397 (9th Cir. 1993). Once an indictment is returned, a party challenging it bears a difficul 25 burden and must demonstrate either that any errors in the indictment process deceived the gran 26 jury, or significantly infringed upon its ability to exercise independent judgment. See Us. v. A 27 Mudarris, 695 F.2d 1182, 1185 (9 th Cir. 1983); Us. v. Wright, 667 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1982) 28 Dismissal of the indictment prior to trial based on errors in the grand jury proceedings i
People v. Mesa, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0225-11 - Page 2 of 4 - warranted only upon showing that the defendant is prejudiced by the error. Bank of Nova Scoti 2 v. Us., 487 U.S. 250, 255 (1988); see also People v. Muna, 1992 WL245624, (D. Guam App 3 Div. 1992). Prejudice is demonstrated if it can be established that the violation substantiall 4 influenced the grand jury's decision to indict or if there is grave doubt that the indictment w 5 free from substantial influence of such violations. Bank of Nova Scotia v. Us., 487 U.S. 250 6 255 (1988). 7 Having reviewed the charges, the Court must determine whether evidence was presente 8 to the grand jury sufficient to formulate reasonable cause to believe that the alleged crimes wer :''''~l ~ ~' ':,."'" :- ~tl , . : -t-'t, 9 committed ant\:fHH\><;tf~~t,;cQ~ti~d·· them. , ~ " ~ Guam law requires sufficient competen 10 evidence to support an indictment. The threshold standard is "reasonable cause to believe that a 11 indictable offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it." 8 GCA §§ 50.4 12 and 50.54 (b). Courts applying this standard have consistently interpreted competent evidence 13 evidence that a reasonable person would rely on in conducting his or her daily affairs. Se 14 People v.ljvelino,CF0435.;.01 (Super. ct. Guam October 2002) (quoting People v. Quidachay 15 815 F.2d i311, 1313 (9th Cir. 1987)). 16 In this particular case, the primary source of evidence presented to the grand j 17 consisted of the testimony of Officer J. C. Terlaje and Officer M.F. Tenorio. After reviewin 18 their respective testimony, the Court finds that the evidence presented to the grand jury w 19 sufficient to constitute reasonable cause to believe that the crime of Second Degree Crimina 20 Sexual Conduct was committed by the Defendant. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidenc 21 submitted to the grand jury that the Defendant subjected the victim to cruel mistreatment unde 22 the same notion that he touched her breast one time and attempted to touch her breast anothe 23 time. 24 Based on the above events, the Court can fmd evidence tending to provide reasonabl 25 cause to believe that Defendant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual gratification. Th 26 Court finds that the evidence tends to demonstrate that Defendant unlawfully initiated contac 27 with the victim. Due to the evidence supporting the idea that the contact was sexual, th 28 treatment of the victim was also cruel. Thus, the grand jury could have found reasonable caus
People v. Mesa, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0225-11 - Page 3 of 4 - to believe that the indictable offenses of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and Chil
2 Abuse had been committed. 3 CONCLUSION
4 Based on the Court's fmding that sufficient evidence was presented to the grand jury t
5 provide reasonable cause to believe that the offenses of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduc
6 and Child Abuse had been committed, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
7 So ORDEREDffl-o-g- mffFebruary, 2012.
~ 8
9 ~cf.j,PER~ 10 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 11
12 I do be~b certify ,bit ,b. f'oreaof..- / / " a full nd cort«I toP)' oh~ 13 oallle. orillin (the ckrk ~ III tl\e olflc.•of ~uperiMCOll" G_ Oal II Hall_Ina, 'GIIUI .' 14 F '0 ~201Z. . 15 'iPI~_llM S.c. ~,. / / 16 17 18 / / 19 20 21 / / 22 23 24 / / 25 26 27 28
People v. Mesa, Decision and Order (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) Criminal Case No. CF0225-11 - Page 4 of 4-