People v. Muna

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: April 26, 2021
• Docket: CF0602-20
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

L~L) SUPERiOR COURT OF GUAM 1 2D2I~PR26 PM ): 0 2 CLERKOFCQURT

3 8y —

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

5 PEOPLE OF GUAM ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0602-20 6 ) vs. ) 7, ) BERNARD JOEL MENO MUNA, ) DECISION AND ORDER DENYING 8 (aka Bernard Joel Muna) ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS DOB: 08/16/1985 ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10

11 INTRODUCTION

12 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Maria T. Cenzon upon Defendant’s

13 Motion to Suppress and Request for Suppression Hearing filed on February 26, 2021. The

14 People of Guam (“People”) are represented by Assistant Attorney General Renaida San

15 Nicolas. Defendant Bernard Joel Meno Muna (“Defendant” or “Muna”) is represented by

16 Assistant Public Defender Zachary C. Taimanglo of the Public Defender Service Corporation.

17 All parties were present in person at the suppression hearing on April 7, 2021. For the reasons

18 set forth below, having reviewed the testimony and oral arguments of both parties, the Court

19 DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.

20 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

21 On December 1, 2020, the People filed a Magistrate’s complaint charging Muna with

22 the offenses of Two Counts of Criminal Mischief (As a Third Degree Felony), and One Count

23 of Family Violence (As a Third Degree Felony). $ç~ Magistrate’s Compl. (Dec. 1, 2020). Each

24 People v. Muna, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page lof 10 1 charge was accompanied with notice of Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly

2 Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. Id. The Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Jonathan R.

3 Quan dismissed the charge of Family Violence without prejudice after finding the charge

4 lacked probable cause. See Order of Dismissal (Charge Two) (Dec. 1, 2020). Thereafter, an

5 Indictment was filed on January 5, 2021, charging Muna with ~ Counts of Criminal

6 Mischief (As a Third Degree Felony) with notice of Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a

7 Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, and One Count of Family Violence (As a

8 Third Degree Felony) with notice of Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly

9 Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. See Indictment (Jan. 5, 2021).

10 The Indictment stems from events on November 30, 2020, when Muna allegedly

11 damaged two vehicles with a crowbar and then fled the scene. See Magistrate’s Compi., Deci.

12 (Dec. 1, 2020). Later on the same date, Muna allegedly struck another victim in the knee with a

13 crowbar. Id. Muna was located by officers and was “handcuffed.. and placed. . . . in the back

14 of a police vehicle.” $ç~ Mot. to Supress, at 4 (Feb. 26, 2021). He was then “transported to a

15 police station where he was interrogated.” Id. While being interviewed, Muna “denied

16 assaulting Victim 3, but did admit to damaging the cars . . . with a crowbar.” See Magistrate’s

17 Compi., Deci. (Dec. 1, 2020).

18 On February 26, 2021, Muna filed a Motion to Suppress. and Request for Suppression

19 Hearing seeking to suppress “any and all statements attributed to him by police for violations

20 of the 5th Amendment.” Mot. to Supress, at 4 (Feb. 26, 2021). A hearing was held on this

21 matter on April 7, 2021, wherein Officer Martin P. Oliva (“Officer Oliva”) testified as the

22 People’s only witness. $ç~ generally Mm. Entry (Apr. 7, 2021).

24 People v. Muna, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page 2 of 10 1 At the suppression hearing, Officer Oliva testified that he received information

2 regarding a complaint by a distraught female who was being chased by her uncle. Suppression

3 Hrg. at 11:05:50 AM (Apr. 7, 2021). Oliva testified that when they pulled up to the scene of

4 the incident on Espinosa Avenue the alleged victim Kealoah Muna alighted from a vehicle and

5 stated “my uncle [the Defendant] just assaulted me. He’s at the house.” Id. at 11:05:58-

6 11:06:42 AIVI. While other officers interviewed the complainants, Officer Oliva met with the

7 Defendant, informed him that a criminal complaint was filed against him and asked him if he

8 would accompany him to the Agat Precinct to make a statement. Id. 11:07:00—11:07:45 AM.

9 Officer Oliva transported Defendant to Agat Precinct in a GPD vehicle.

10 At the Agat Precinct, Officer Oliva testified that he advised the Defendant of his rights

11 using the Guam Police Department “GPD 9” Custodial Rights Interrogation Form. Id.

12 11:07:48-11:08:17 AM. Although Officer Oliva keeps a small Miranda warnings card with

13 him, he did not give the Defendant any Miranda warnings while at the scene on Espinosa

14 Avenue because he decided he was not going to question the Defendant there.’ Id. 11:08:21-

15 11:08:38 AM. Instead, at the Agat Precinct, he provided Defendant with the Custodial

16 Interrogation Form and advised him of his rights. The following is Officer Oliva’s testimony

17 regarding what then transpired during the interrogation:

18 SAN NICOLAS:2 Did Mr. Bernard look at your custodial interrogation form? OLIVA: Yes, when we were at the precinct. 19 S1%.N NICOLAS: What else did he do? OLIVA: I advised him of his rights; he wished to speak with me, however, when I got 20 down to the portion where it says the “Waiver of Rights,” he said that “I don’t wanna waive my rights.” And I told him, well, it’s not waiving your rights, you’re kind of 21 asserting your rights here in a sense. So I instructed him several times that at any time you can stop talking to me. He said, “What if I don’t want to sign?” Okay, you don’t 22

23 1 2 All references to “Miranda” herein are to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966). Reference is to Assistant Attorney General Renita San Nicolas.

24 People v. Muna, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page 3 of 10 1 have to sign, I advised you of your rights already. You can still make a statement and from there, he agreed to talk.3 2 SAN NICOLAS: What, if anything, did he say to you? * * * OLIVA: After advising him of his rights, I asked him if he struck Kealoha, his niece, he 3 said no, and I asked him if he any problems with his niece and he said, “they’re doing something to my children.” When I asked him, “Who?” he declined to comment 4 further; however, after that he did utter that, “But I did damage my niece’s car.” • SAN NICOLAS: Ok, and what, if anything did you do upon hearing that statement? 5 OLIVA: I told him to stop. I re-advised him of his Miranda rights via my card and also, his Miranda rights were already still in effect. 6 SAN NICOLAS: Ok, and anything else after that? OLIVA: No, Ma’ am.4 7 On cross-examination, Defense Counsel admitted into evidence as Exhibit A, a portion 8 of Officer Oliva’ s “Arrest Information Sheet.”5 Exhibit A indicates largely what was testified 9 to on cross-examination. Defendant was administered his Miranda rights via a Custodial 10 Interrogation Rights form, or GPD 9 form, “to which he acknowledged, refused to sign, but 11 indicated a willingness to make a statement without legal counsel present.” People’s Ex. A. 12 After Defendant is reported to have uttered, “I did go up to my Niece’s house earlier today and 13 damaged the cars there with a crowbar.” The narrative indicates that Officer Oliva instructed 14 Defendant to stop speaking, “whereby I verbally informed him of his Miranda Rights Again.” 15 Id. Defendant then declined to be interviewed further. 16 Also, during his cross-examination, Oliva explained further what transpired between 17 him and the Defendant during the interrogation at the Agat Precinct: Officer Oliva admitted 18 that he did not sign the GPD 9 form on the “witness” portion and “that is my mistake” nor was 19 there a witness present who would have signed on the second line of the form set aside for 20 witnesses. Additionally, Oliva testified that there was no recording of the interview or 21

22 3SuppressionHrg. 11:08:45 11:09:21 AM. —

41d. 11:10:13 11:12:04AM. -

23 ~ Admitted into evidence was Defendant’s Exhibit A, which is page 25 of Officer Oliva’s Arrest Information Sheet for Case Number 2020-00030068 dated November 30, 2020. 24 People v. Muna, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page 4 of 10 1 interrogation of the Defendant at Agat Precinct, nor is there any recording equipment which

2 would have recorded such interview Id. 11:20:56 AM.

3 When Defense Counsel asked him about continuing to interrogate the Defendant after

4 Defendant indicated he did not want to waive his Miranda rights, Oliva responded as follows:

5 OLIVA: So I told him about his rights, like I was telling the prosecutor here, I read him his rights, the last portion there which he did sign, and I told him specifically, and said 6 it numerous times, umm., you can still talk to me, however, though you can stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer. That is your right. So, once he read the 7 bottom portion where it said “Waiver of his rights” he said, “I don’t, ummm, I don’t want to sign this, okay, but, you know I do want to talk, ‘cos I don’t want to waive my 8 [inaudible].” Okay then. I did read him his rights and he understood and I proceeded with the interrogation.6 9 It is not disputed, and the Court finds, that at the time of the interrogation by Officer 10 Oliva, the Defendant was not free to leave either the residence at Espinosa Avenue nor the 11 Agat precinct on his own. Additionally, while being transported from Espinosa Avenue by 12 Officer Oliva, the Defendant’s freedom was restricted and he is deemed to have been “in 13 custody” from the time of his transport to Agat Precinct. Officer Oliva administered the 14 Miranda rights to Defendant at 6:49 p.m. on November 30, 2020 while at the Agat Precinct, he 15 was interviewed at 6:53 p.m. on the same day, and was arrested at 7:15 p.m. on the same day. 16 There was no evidence presented to the court that Defendant was in custody for a protracted 17 period of time before being Mirandized, interviewed, and arrested. There is no evidence that 18 Defendant made any statements prior to being Mirandized. No other witnesses were presented 19 to the Court during the suppression hearing. 20 After hearing the testimony and the arguments of both parties, the Court took the matter 21 under advisement and now issues this Decision and Order. 22

23 61d. 11:20:56- 11:22:00AM. 24 People v..Muna, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page 5 of 10 1 DISCUSSION

2 The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Guam Organic Act,

3 Section 1421b(d), state: “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a

4 witness against himself.” U.S. Const. Amend. V; 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421b(d). The United States

5 Supreme Court explains, in order “to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our

6 accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government . . . produce the evidence

7 against him by its own independent labors.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966).

8 Thus, the only way to vindicate the Fifth Amendment’s constitutional protections against self-

9 incrimination is to allow the accused “the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in

10 the unfettered exercise of his free will.” Id. In order to protect that constitutional right, “[alt the

11 outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must. first be informed in

12 clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.” Id. at 467-468 (1966).

13 A Miranda warning is a necessary function of police interrogation and “[u]nless and

14 until Miranda warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence

15 obtained as a result of custodial interrogation can be used against a defendant.” United States v.

16 Williams, 842 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2016); See also People v. Parker, 395 P.3d 208, 230

17 (Cal. 2017) (“A defendant must be advised of his or her Miranda rights, and must make a valid

18 waiver of these rights before questioning begins or any statements resulting from interrogation

19 can be admitted.”). The Guam Supreme Court has held that “[p]ersons must be advised of their

20 rights prior to a custodial interrogation,” or that evidence becomes inadmissible. People v.

21 Farata, 2007 Guam 8 (j[ 20; See also People v. Sangalang, 2001 Guam 18 ¶ 12.

22 On the other hand, a suspect who has been informed of his rights “may waive

23 effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and

24 . People v. Muna, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page 6 of 10 1 intelligently.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 (1966). However, “[t]here is a presumption against the

2 finding of a waiver, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

3 evidence that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights.” Sangalang,

4 2001 Guam 18 ¶ 13. The United States Supreme Court has held that proof of waiver requires

5 surpassing a heavy burden: “[s]ince the State is responsible for establishing the isolated

6 circumstances under which the interrogation takes place and has the only means of making

7 available corroborated evidence of warnings given during incommunicado interrogation, the

8 burden is rightly on its shoulders.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 (1966). The rationale for the

9 prosecution’s “heavy burden” is based on the traditional principle of constitutional law that a

10 suspect’s waiver of rights will not be “lightly inferred,” and courts will “indulge every

11 reasonable presumption against the waiver of a fundamental right.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.

12 458,464(1938).

13 Moreover, “[a] valid waiver of [a defendant’s] Miranda rights depends on the totality of

14 the circumstances, including the background, experience, and conduct of the defendant.”

15 Samalang, 2001 Guam 18 ¶ 13 (quoting United States v. Garibay, 143 F.3d 534, 536 (9th Cir.

16 1998)). In considering whether a waiver is voluntary and absent coercion, the courts will look

17 to several factors, including: age, education, and intelligence of the defendant; the length of

18 detention and questioning; whether Miranda warnings were given; the defendant’s physical and

19 mental characteristics; and the location of the interrogation. See U.S. v. Chalan, 812 F.2d 1302,

20 1307 (10th Cir. 1987). “In no case, however, is any single factor determinative.” Id. Once, a

21 defendant validly waives his Miranda rights, interrogation may continue until the defendant

22 invokes his rights or changed circumstances suggest the responses have become involuntary.

23 See U.S. v. Abreu, 730 F. Supp. 1018, 1030 (D. Cob. 1990).

24 . . People v. Muna, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page 7 of 10 1 In deciding if the waiver was intelligent, the court looks at whether “the defendant

2 knew that he did not have to speak to police and understood that statements provided to police

3 could be used against him.” U.S. v. Hernandez, 913 F. 2d 1506, 1510 (10th Cir. 1990). The

4 defendant need not “appreciate the tactical advantage of remaining silent” for the waiver to be

5 intelligent. Id. The Supreme Court has “never ‘embraced the theory that a defendant’s

6 ignorance of the full consequences of his decisions vitiates their voluntariness.” Connecticut v.

7 Barret, 479 U.S. 523, 530 (1987) (quoting Oregon v. Elstad, 407 U.S. 298, 316 (1985)).

8 Finally, even when the police provide a custodial interrogation waiver form, “the

9 refusal to sign the form d[oes] not indicate a desire to remain silent.” U.S. v. Speaks, 453 F.2d

10 966, 969 (1972). As courts have repeatedly held, “refusal to sign the written waiver form.. is .

11 not fatal; Miranda does not require a written waiver, but only a waiver made voluntarily,

12 knowingly, and intelligently.” Klingler v. U.S., 409 F.2d 299, 308 (8th Cir. 1969). See also U.S.

13 v. Moreno-Lopez, 466 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1972); State v. Wallace, 94 P.3d 1275 (Haw. 2004).

14 In other words, “[r]efusal to sign a waiver form or a written statement, although some evidence

15 of the absence of waiver, may be outweighed by affirmative conduct indicative of a knowingly

16 and intelligently made decision not to remain silent. . . .“ State v. Harris, 452 A.2d 634, 637

17 (Conn. 1982).

18 The Guam Supreme Court has likewise confronted this issue, and has held that “[a

19 defendant’s] willingness to speak with the officer [is] a ‘course of conduct indicating waiver,’

20 notwithstanding his refusal to sign the advice-of-rights form.” People v. Chong, 2019 Guam 20

21 ¶ 15 (citing Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 384 (2010)). The United States Supreme 22 Court has reasoned that a defendant may still waive his right against self-incrimination while

23 refusing to sign a waiver of rights form if: “(1) the defendant’s understanding of English was

24 People v. Mona, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page 8 of 10 1 sufficient evidence he understood the rights presented, (2) the fact that he answered the

2 officer’s questions was a sufficient “course of conduct indicating waiver,” and (3) there was no

3 evidence that the defendant was coerced.” Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 385; See also Chong, 2019

4 Guam20~J[14.

5 Here, it is undisputed that Defendant was in custody and thus subjected to a custodial

6 interrogation. $~ Mot. to Suppress at 4 (Feb. 26, 2021) (“A GPD officer handcuffed Mr. Muna

7 and placed him in the back of a police vehicle. Mr. Muna was then transported to a police

8 station where he was interrogated.”). It is also undisputed that Defendant was provided with a

9 “Custodial Interrogation” form at the Agat Precinct. $~ Mm. Entry, at 11:21:49 AM (April 7,

10 2021); Def’s Exhibit 1. However, Officer Oliva testified that, after providing him with GPD 9

11 Custodial Interrogation Form, Muna initialed the portions of the form acknowledging that he

12 had been informed of his Miranda rights. After acknowledging that he understood his rights, he

13 informed Oliva that he did not wish to sign the waiver section of the form, but expressed his

14 desire to continue to speak to Officer Oliva. Id. Further, Officer Oliva testified that once Muna

15 began to make statements of admission, he stopped the Defendant, read the Defendant his

16 rights again via his Miranda card that he carries with him, and “continued with the

17 interrogation.” Id. at 11:21:59 AM. The Defendant then elected not to make any more

18 statements.

19 There is no evidence before the Court contradicting Officer Oliva’ s testimony that the

20 Defendant desired to continue to speak to him even after first refusing to sign the waiver form.

21 The Court also considers the following circumstances in determining whether Defendants act

22 of continuing to speak to Oliva was knowing, intelligent and voluntary: there is no indication

23 that Defendant did not understand the Miranda warnings, either the written GPD 9 form or the

24 . People v. Mona, Criminal Case No. CF0602-20 Decision and Order Denying Def’s Mot. to Suppress Page 9 of 10 1 oral admonition via Officer Oliva’ s Miranda rights card; Defendant has a history of prior

2 criminal convictions and arguably has 1~een administered Miranda warnings in each of those

3 prior cases; Defendant clearly understood that the consequence of continuing to speak to

4 Officer Oliva, admitting to one act of which the alleged victims complained, but disavowing

5 another. Thus, the Court finds under the circumstances that Defendant engaged in a “course of

6 conduct indicating waiver” knowingly and intelligently by continuing to speak to Officer Oliva

7 after being apprised of his right to remain silent both verbally and in writing. Further, there is

8 no evidence that Defendant does not understand the English language or that he did not

9 understand the written or oral rights as presented to him. Finally, the totality of the

10 circumstances, including: Muna’s age (35 years old) and intelligence; the short length of

11 detention and questioning; Defendant’s prior criminal; and the fact that Miranda warnings were

12 given both verbally and in writing, all support a finding that Defendant’s waiver was knowing,

13 intelligent and voluntary.

14 CONCLUSION

15 Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is DENIEIJ.7 AP~ 26 2~21 16 SO ORDERED this____________

18 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic THE HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON 19 copy of the original was e-mailed to: Judge, Superior Court of Guam A6, /~j~ 20 _________________

_______Time:_______ 21 Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam 22

23 ~ The issuance of this Decision and Order shall resume the speedy trial clock as of the date of this Decision. A Criminal Trial Scheduling Order [Asserted] shall be issued separately. 24 People v. Muna, Criminal ease No. CFO6O2~2O Decision and Order Denying Defs Mot. to Suppress Page 10 of 10