People v. Mongami

Opinion

u

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

3 CRIMINAL CASE No. CM B588:.12 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, )

4 )

)

5 V. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) On Defendant's 6 JORIM MONGAMI, ) Motion to Dismiss 7 )

Defendant. )

8

9

10 INTRODUCTION

11

12 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on March 8, 2013 o

l3 Defendant's Motion for Dismiss for Inappropriate Prosecution I De Minimis Infraction and fo 14 Civil Compromise. The People of Guam were represented by Assistant Attorney Genera IS Christine Santos Tenorio. The Defendant was represented by Assistant Public Defender Mari 16

17 Fitzpatrick. Having reviewed the memorandum and papers presented, the court now issues th

18 following decision DENYING the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 19 FACTUAL HISTORY

20 The Defendant has been charged with one count each of misdemeanor Assault and Family 21 Violence for actions arising out of an alleged altercation between the Defendant and his 22

23 girlfriend. As with all crimes, the Defendant was charged based upon facts presented in a police

24 reported submitted to the Attorney General's Office following the Defendant's arrest. Since the 25 arrest, the alleged victim has expressed a desire to have the case dismissed. Based upon the 26 victim's statements, the Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the charges 27 against the Defendant should be dropped because the parties have reached a civil compromise 28

Page 1 ofS

pursuant to 8 GCA §80.90. The Defendant further argues that dismissal is warranted because 2 his alleged conduct falls within the circumstances allowing for dismissal under Guam's de 3 minimis prosecution statute. The People timely filed an opposition to the motion arguing that 4 neither civil compromise nor dismissal pursuant to the de minimis statute is appropriate to the 5

6 facts of the case. For the following reasons, the Court agrees with the People.

7 DISCUSSION

8 The Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon two, alternative grounds: (1 9 that the Defendant and the alleged victim have reached a civil compromise pursuant to 8 GC 10 §80.90, and (2) that the Defendant only pushed his girlfriend, making criminal prosecutio 1l

12 inappropriate. Each argument will be evaluated in tum.

l3 I. Civil Compromise is not Appropriate for Crimes involving Family Violence 14 The Defendant argues that the criminal charges against him should be dismissed because h 15 and the alleged victim have reached a civil compromise pursuant to 8 GCA §80.90. In People v.

16

17 Kinsella, CM 1197-12, the Court held that it will not use its discretion to permit civi

18 compromise in family violence cases because they do not present "circumstances such tha

19 through private settlement the public is fully vindicated." People v. Moulton, 182 Cal.Rptr. 761 20 768 (1982). The interest of the People of Guam in seeing family violence cases prosecute 21 combined with the fact that other jurisdictions bar the application of civil compromise statutes t 22

23 family and domestic violence cases supports this discretionary decision.

24 II. The Defendant's Alleged Actions are not De Minimis 25 Guam's de minimis prosecution statute authorizes the court to dismiss charges against 26 Defendant where necessary to "prevent absurd applications." 9 G.C.A. §7.67 (2012). The statut 27 lists three circumstances where the court shall dismiss a prosecution. The Defendant, without an 28

Page 2 of5

supporting evidence, argues that all three circumstances apply to him. The Defendant also relie 2 on the Guam Supreme Court case of People v. Perez to argue that ''the trial court must determin 3 whether dismissal is warranted by considering the following factors; The circumstance 4 surrounding the commission of the offense, the existence of contraband, the amount and value o 5

6 property involved and the use of threat of violence and the use of weapons." Finally, th

7 Defendant suggests that because "there was no contraband, there is no property involved of an 8 value, and weapon was not used," the case should be dismissed.

9 The Guam Supreme Court made clear that a dismissal on de minimis grounds requires tha 10 the trial court to "make factual determinations with respect to the conduct charged." People v.

11

12 Perez, 2004 Guam 4 (citing See State v. Carmichael, 53 P.3d 214, 218 (Haw.2002)). Thi

l3 requires analysis of "objective factors directly related to the defendant's conduct and, i 14 particular, the consequences for the societal interests involved." /d. (citing State v. Zarrilli, 523 15 A.2d 284 (N.J.Super. Ct. Law Div.1987), affd, 532 A.2d 1131 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.l987).

16

17 The Court explains that "the protection to which society is entitled is provided by a dismiss

18 only when the offense is truly 'trivial."' Therefore, with the best interests of the public in mind 19 assessing a de minimis motion requires the court to answer this single question: "What is the ris 20 of harm to which society is exposed by defendant's conduct?" Id.

21 In a motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds the court assumes that the factual allegation 22

23 against the Defendant are true. This is required by law because ""[t]he motion does not provide

24 setting for a determination of guilt or innocence." /d. Assuming that the Defendant did in fac 25 repeatedly push, then hit his girlfriend, his conduct meets the legal definitions of both Assaul 26 and Family Violence. The risk of harm to society that arises from acts of Assault and Famil 27

28

Page3 of5

Violence are significant and cannot be viewed as trivial absent evidence that the charges ar 2 excessive or unwarranted.

3 The facts of the current case are easily distinguishable from the facts in Perez. Perez wa 4 charged with Improper Influence over a Notary and Official Misconduct. In that case, the tria 5

6 court's de minimis dismissal of the charges was upheld by the Supreme Court not because it wa

7 alleged that Perez did not commit the crimes in question, but because it was determined tha 8 Perez's actions could not have caused "the harm or evil which the statute protects." !d. Critically 9 even under the assumption that Perez did commit the crimes at issue, the Court found that it wa 10 the actions of a second defendant that defrauded the public. Here, the Defendant is alleged t ll

12 have caused direct bodily injury to his girlfriend. Viewing these factual allegations as true

13 charges of Assault and Family Violence are appropriate as both statutes were enacted to protec 14 victims from these crimes. The fact that the victim no longer seeks prosecution of the Defendan 15 does not make the charges against the Defendant inaccurate nor does it render them trivial.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page4 ofS

CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the Defendant's alleged actions do not mee 3 the standard for dismissal pursuant to Guam's de minimis prosecution statute. Accordingly, th 4 court DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for De Minimis Infraction I Inappropriat 5

6 Prosecution. The Court also finds no basis for allowing civil compromise in family violenc

7 cases and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss for Civil Compromise. Trial setting is hereby se 8 for ~ I':) ,20~at9:00am.

9

10

11 SO ORDERED, this 3rct day of May 2013.

12

l3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PageS of5