People v. Murray

Opinion

»'1!LI.._. i" It kJ 'n SUP! CGUF€T C U ; .u

IS F H 5=?l:» Ngtrz ag xv **. a Ft £..,; |:L= ¥ I C : §ry»./'\r"1':. 2 2 CLER~\ OF COURT L,.i 1»¢\ H-

5 5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. no. CF0702-22 8 ) GPD Report GPD Report No.: No.: 22-30362 22-30362 ) 9 vs. ) 10 10 ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. ) DEFENDANT'S DEFENDANT'S MOTION MOTION FOR II ) SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION KYLE KYLE RICHARD MURRAY, MURRAY, ) 12 12 DOB: DOB: 10/04/1996 10/04/1996 13 _________ ______))) 14 14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Maria T. Cenzon Judge Maria Cenzon on on August August 18, 18, 2023 for a 16 16 hearing onthe hearing on theDefendant's Defendant'sMotion Motionfor forSecond SecondForensic ForensicEvaluation Evaluation(the (the"Motion"). "Motion"). Kyle Richard 17

Murray Murray ("Deflendant") ("Defendant") was was present present with with counsel counsel Assistant Assistant Public Public Defender DefenderPeter PeterSerbian Sablan and and 18 18

19 19 Assistant Attorney General General Grant Olan represented representedthe thePeople People of of Guam. Guam.Following Following testimony by

20 Dr. Juan Rapadas,Ph.D. Juan Rapadas, Ph.D.("Dr. ("Dr. Rapadas") and and argument argument by the the parties, the Court took took the matter 21 under advisementpursuant under advisement pursuantto to CVRCVR 7.1(@)(6)(D) 7.l(e)(6)(D) ofofthe the LOCALRULES LOCAL SUPERIOR THE SUPERIOR OFTHE RULESOF 22 COURT COURTOF OFGUAM GUAMand andAdministrative AdministrativeRule RuleNos. Nos.06-001. 06-001. After Afterconsidering considering the the pleadings pleadings on 23 file, file, oral oralargument argument by by both both parties, parties, and and after reviewing reviewingthe theapplicable applicablestatutes statutes and and case law, the 24 24

25 Court now issues thisDecision issues this Decisionand andOrder OrderGRANTING, GRANTING, in part, and DENYING, in and DENYING, in part, part, the the 26 26 Defendant's Motion Motion for for Second Second Forensic Evaluation. 27 People People of ofGuam vs. vs.Kyle Kyle Richard Richard Murray 28 28 Criminal Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0702-22 CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. re.Defendant's Defendant'sMotion Motion for Second SecondForensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation Page Page 1 oflS of18 J

FACTUAL&&P_ROCEDURAL FACIUAL BACKGROUND PROCEDURALBAg_KGROU_NP 1

2 The Defendant is chargedwith is charged thefollowing withthe offenses: 1) following offenses: (As a Third 1) Aggravated Assault (As

3 Allegation: Use of A Deadly Special Allegation: with a Special Degree Felony) with Weapon In Deadly Weapon Of A In The Commission Of 4 2) Family Felony and 2) Counts) (As Family Violence (2 Counts) Third Degree (As Third Felonies). See Degree Felonies). Dec. 1, Indictment, Dec. See Indictment, l, 5 2022. The charges stem from an incident during which from an Defendant allegedly which Defendant punchedand allegedlypunched stabbed and stabbed 6

7 punched and and punched his father Robert Murray and attemptedtotogouge andattempted outthe gougeout eyesof theeyes mother Kim of his mother 7

8 8 See Deel. Murray. See Murray. to Magistrate's Decl. to Con pl (Nov. Magistrate's Compl 27, 2022). (Nov. 27,

9 I. Observations of Defendant. Rapadas's Observations Dr. Rapadas's The Forensic Evaluation: Dr. The 10 10 On December 2, 2022, On December pleaded not 2022, Defendant pleaded guilty by reason of mental not guilty disease or defect mental disease 11 the magistrate and the orderedaaforensic magistrate ordered evaluationof forensicevaluation theDefendant. ofthe SeeNotice Defendant.See of Plea Noticeof of Not Plea of 12 12

13 1 Guilty and Not Mental Illness Disease or Defect (Dec. 2, Reason of Mental Not Guilty By Reason 2022); Order for 2, 2022),

14 14 Forensic Evaluation Evaluation (Dec. (Dec. 6, 6, 2022). 2022). The The matters matters considered considered in in the Forensic Evaluation included: Evaluation included: 15 15 1. 1. An Anopinion opinionasastotothe thedefendant's defendant'scompetency competency to to be beproceeded against, proceeded against, 16 16 together with with the the reasons reasons and basis for and basis for the the opinion.

17 17 2. An Anopinion opinionasastotothe thedefendant's defendant'scompetency tobe competencyto sentenced, together with be sentenced, the reasons andbasis reasons and basisfor for the the opinion. opinion. 18 18

19 3. An Anopinion opinionas astotowhether whether orornot notthethedefendant defendant was suffering from was suffering any from any mental illness, disease mental illness, disease or or defect defect at the time of the conduct alleged to have the time 20 20 constituted the offense charged constituted the charged against against the defendant and the defendant whether, as aa and whether, result thereof, thereof, he he lacked lacked substantial substantial capacity capacity to knowor to know understand what he orunderstand 21 was doing, doing; or or to to know know ororunderstand understand thatthat his conduct was his conduct wrongful or to waswrongful 22 22 control hi actions, actions; or to to the the extent extent to which, as to which, consequence of as aa consequence mental of mental illness, disease, or defect, the the defendant did or did not have a state mind state of 23 relevant to any issue the trial issue in the trial of this action. 24 . Forensic Eval. Forenslc 1. at 1. Evil. at 25

26 26

27 People ofa/Guam vs. Kyle Guam vs. Richard Murray Kyle Richard Murray 28 28 Criminal Criminal Case CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Page 2 of of 18 Defendant was Defendant was seen seen at at the the Client Client Services Services and andFamily Family Counseling Counseling(CSFC) (CSFC) offices on 1

2 January January4,4,2023. 2023.Id. Id at 2. The exam exam included included aa comprehensive comprehensive forensic exam exam and and interview, 3 MMSE (mini-mental MMSE (mini-mental status exam) and status exam) and aa review review of of Defendant's Defendant's court court and records records on on file file with 4 Guam Behavioral Behavioral Health and andWellness WellnessCenter Center((GBHWC). GBHWC). Id Id.Prior Priortotothe thestart start of ofthe the examination, 5 he was informed about the the non-confidential nature of of the evaluation, that that it was conducted not not for for 6

the purpose of treatment, and Dr. Dr. Rapadas Rapadasnoted, noted, "Mr. "Mr. Murray Murrayappeared appeared to to have havean an understanding understanding 7

8 of the of above facts the above facts about about his his forensic forensic evaluation. evaluation. He He gave gavehis his assent assent to to continue continue the the exam exam and and 9 signed the disclosure form." the disclosure form." Id. The Theevaluation evaluationlasted lasted approximately approximately one hour hour and think (30) and thirty (30) 10 10 minutes. Id minutes. Id. 11 A. Defendant's Self-Reported Self-Reported Mental Mental Health and Employment History 12

13 13 Defendant reported to have a history of diagnosed diagnosed depression for for which which he he was prescribed

14 14 an anti-depressant. anti-depressant.Id. Id at at 3. 3. He He also also self-reported a history of ofalcohol alcohol consumption consumption resulting resulting in in aa 15 15 DUI DUI while while in inhigh high school school in inCuba, Cuba, aa charge charge for for underage drinldng while underage drinking while living in in Georgia, Georgia, and and 16 16 arrests for alcohol-related arrests for alcohol-related offenses offenseswhile while living living in North Carolina. Carolina. Id. Despite Despite his his struggles struggles with with 17 17 alcohol and depression, Defendant and depression, Defendantserved served for for one and a half years as as a Federal Federal Firefighter and and 18 18

19 stationedin was stationed inNorfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. Virginia. Id Id.atat4.4.However, However,he heindicated indicatedthat that during during his his service service he he was was 20 20 placed placed on medication medication to address address his chronic chronic depression and and anxiety, anxiety, and andafter after deciding deciding on on his his own own 21 to cease cease taking taking the the prescribed prescribed medications, medications, he he was was later later was was arrested arrested for formethamphetamine methamphetamine use use 22 ·and terminated 'and terminated as as aafire fire fighter. fighter. Id. Id During During this this time, he he admitted to to "drinking "drinking a a lot" lot" and and reported reported 23

being being incarcerated incarcerated ininVirginia Virginia for for the the meth met charge charge and and after after his his release release eventually eventually moved moved to to 24 24

25 25 Guam. Id at Guam. Id. Aftermoving 4. After at 4. movingtotoGuam, Guam, he he was was gainfully gainfullyemployed employed in in aa job job he he enjoyed enjoyed and and was was 26

27 27 People of of Guam vs. vs. Kyle Richard Murray 28 Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0702-22 CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. Defendant's Deflendant's Motion Motion for for Second Forensic Evaluation Second Forensic Evaluation Page 3 of 18 18 I

about to about his studies start his to start in Civil studiesin at the Civil Engineering at ofGuam, the University of but was Guam; but arrested in was arrested 1

2 September 2022 foraaDUI. 2022for Id11 DUI. Id.

3 3 B. B. Defendant's Record ServicesatatGBHWC. Record of Services GBHWC. 4 Defendant has Defendant received services has received from GBHWC servicesfrom the past in the GBHWC in and in the course past and his course of his 5 evaluation, Dr. evaluation, Rapadas reviewed Dr. Rapadas his treatment records of his reviewed records from October treatment from 18, 2021, October 18, through 2021, through 6

7 2022. Id. Defendant November 29, 2022. was noted Defendantwas tohave noted to undergoneaadrug haveundergone and alcohol drug and assessment alcoholassessment 7

8 through GBHWC through in 2021 GBHWC in during which 2021 during "hetested which "he negative on tested negative depression and ondepression anxiety and anxiety

9 questionnaire. provisional diagnosis questionnaire. His provisional was Methamphetamine diagnosis was use disorder and he Methamphetamine use was referred he was referred 10 10 Drug and for Drug Alcohol assessment and Alcohol and treatment." assessment and treatment."Id. case was Defendant's case Id However, Defendant's closed was closed 11 11 there was no current without services "because there phone number." current phone number." Id. 5. Defendant at 5. Id at indicated to Defendant indicated 12 12

113 Rapadas that Dr. Rapadas that"[h]e feels he "[h]e feels hehas misdiagnosed. He been misdiagnosed. has been thinks he He thinks may be he may more bipolar be more than bipolar than

14 14 having major major depression because he has because he hasextreme extreme and andsudden suddenmood moodshifts hislife." throughouthis shiftsthroughout life."Id. Id

15 15 Rapadas noted Dr. Rapadas that"[a]t noted that current forensic this current "[a]t this exam, Kyle forensic exam, report any active Kyle did not report 16 16 hallucinations or delusions. hallucinations He did report delusions. He suicidal ideation over report having suicidal the past few years over the as he years as 17 17 has felt depressed depressed and the longest and anxious for the timeand longest time hehad and he sought treatment had sought and participated treatment and 18 1

19 19 in treatment years.. .. His for years. treatment for was more illness was mental illness His mental mood-related disorders more mood-related not disorders and not

20 Id.atat55(emphasis psychosis related." Id added). (emphasis added). 21 // II 22 II // 23

24 24

25 11 The which Defendant has been CM03 l 8-22, in which Defendant, CM03 case involving Defendant, another case of another notice of judicial notice take judicial shall take Court shall The Court 26 charged with Driving While Impaired (As a Misdemeanor) and Driving While Impaired (B.A.C.)(As a Misdemeanor) currently in status before in pre-trial status the Honorable before the Judge Vernon P. Perez. Honorable Judge 27 People of of Guam vs. vs. Kyle Kyle Richard Richard Murray 28 Criminal Criminal Case CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. Defendant's Deflendant's Motion for Second Motion for Forensic Evaluation Second Forensic Evaluation Page 4 of Page of 18 I I

c. C. Assessment. DuringAssessment. Defendant During of Defendant Observations of Rapadas's Observations Dr. Rapadas's Dr. 1

2 mental status During his mental exam,Dr. status exam, Rapadasnoted Dr. Rapadas thefollowing notedthe the which the following observations which

3 Court finds relevant to this Motion:22 4 1. Orientation and l. Orientation and Memory. Defendant "was Memory. Defendant place, time, oriented to place, "was oriented person, time, person, 5 situation, and situation, object. He and object. articulate why He could articulate why he was here for was here court-ordered for aacourt-ordered evaluation. His forensic evaluation. attention and His attention concentration during the assessment were and concentration during the assessment 6 remembered some He remembered good. He past. During remote past. and remote recent and his recent ofhis details of some details the During the assessment, assessment, hishiseye contact was eye contact Both his was good. Both short-term his short-term and long-term memory 7 appeared toto be fair at this be fair time. He thistime. appearto He did appear tobe reliable historian beaareliable for whatever historianfor 8 he shared. shared.

9 2. somewhat emotional when and somewhat anxious and seemed anxious Affect. Defendant's seemed and Ajkct. Mood and 2. Mood when the case. speaking about the concerned about case. He seemed very concerned this evaluation about this and the evaluation and 10 consequences of possible consequences evaluation. His affect of this evaluation. was mood affect was appropriate. mood appropriate. 11 II 3. 3. Speech Speechand Thought. His and Thought. flowwas speech flow His speech good.Speech wasgood. content was Speechcontent appropriate was appropriate 12 12 and fully understood to situation. For Mr. Murray, didappear Murray, itit did he completely appear that he completely and fully understood 13 the questions that the questions were asked. that were thought content was appropriate asked. His thought and appropriate to mood and circumstances and circumstances andnever bizarre or psychotic. His never bizarre thought organization His thought seemed organization seemed 14 good as good on the query. as he always focused on 15 15 4. Fundofof 4. Fund Knowledge,Judgment, Knowlea'ge, Insightand Judgment, Insight Skills. His and Skills. fund of general knowledge His fund 16 16 was was estimated estimated toto be average at best based average at best based on his on hisreported educational, reported educational, occupational, and occupational, academic history. and academic judgment, clinical insight, history. His judgment, and coping insight, and 17 17 from fair range from skills range togood at best as he has reported that he had stretches of fair to good at best as he has reported that he had stretches time when he worked with full-time, maintained with others, worked full-time, viable and maintained viable stable and stable 18 18 relationships, relationships, and and handled handled his hisfinancial financial obligations obligations well. well. It It does does appear appear that that he 19 19 wants wants to self-advocacyat to be generally assertive regarding self-advocacy this time atthis and he timeand wants he wants to resolve all ofhis all of legaltroubles. his legal Beforethis troubles. Before new case, this new all of case, all his previous ofhis cases previous cases 20 20 were either closed or if ifopen, he was taking care of open, he them. of them. 21 Rapadas also Dr. Rapadas administeredthe also administered MMSE which is "used by clinicians to check theMMSE the check for the 22 22 examinee's basic basic orientation, attention, and short term recall, attention, orientation, short command of and command the language. of the His language. His 23 23

MMSE MMSE score score today was 30 out today was of 30, out of which is 30, which score." Id. atat66(emphasis is a perfect score." added). (emphasis added). 24 24

25 25

26 26 2 Forensic Evaluation at p. 5-6. 2 Forensic Evaluation at 27 27 People a/Guam People of vs. Kyle Guam vs. Richard Murray Kyle Richard 28 Criminal Case No. Criminal Case CF0702-22 No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order Deflendant'sMotion re. Defendant's Order re. Forensic Evaluation Motion for Second Forensic Evaluation Page 5 of18 of18 I

Moreover, Dr. Rapadas opined that "[a]t this forensic exam, Mr. Murray had no Murray had of any no evidence of 1

2 cognitive or neurological major cognitive executive functioning neurological or executive impairment at functioning impairment this time. at this was time. He was

3 3 recall." Id registration attention, language skills, and good recall." cognitive registration oriented, had good cognitive Id 4 D. Rapadas's Opinions Following Examination Dr. Rapadas's Dr. 5 his resulting In his Forensic Evaluation resulting Forensic Rapadas concluded that Defendant is Evaluation Report, Dr. Rapadas 6

currentlycompetent currently beproceeded competenttotobe against and proceeded against to be and to sentenced: 3 be sentenced 7

8 Taken all data in total, opinion, Mr. total, in my opinion, Murray is currently competent to be Mr. Murray proceeded against proceeded At the against and to be sentenced. At assessment session the assessment Mr. Murray was session Mr. 9 of the specific purposes of the specific understood the very willing to talk openly in English. He understood 10 10 forensic evaluation.

11 11 He presented as oriented in all spheres, lucid, and rational. He had a good mental rational. He status clinical presentation. status clinical Mr. Murray presentation. Mr. able to Murray isis able grasp the to grasp the legal concepts and 12 12 attorney. He said his terms, understands his terms, understands charges, and his charges, wants to and wants to work with his attorney. 13 attorney was Peter Sablan. attorney was He was Sablan. He unsure who was unsure who his judge was and when his next his judge hearing was, but he knew it was soon. It is tomorrow at 9 am with Judge Cenzon. am with 14 He knew the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. He knows why he felony. He 15 15 was arrested charges. He was arrested and he understood the charges. forthcoming about was forthcoming sharing about sharing 16 16 incident. He would take about what he could recall about the incident. the legal take the process legal process seriously. 17 17

18 18 Rapadas further Dr. Rapadas found that further found the Defendant that the not lack Defendant "did not substantial capacity to know lack substantial 19 19 or understand control his actions, understand what he was doing, to control know or actions, and to know understand that his or understand 20

(emphasis in conduct was wrongful." Id atat 99 (emphasis original). However, in original). the Forensic However, the Evaluation notes Forensic Evaluation 21

22 22 that Defendant "may have had a diminished capacity in his mental state that contributed in some diminished capacity

23 23 father." Id. incident that night with his father." way to the incident Dr. Rapadas noted conclusion, Dr. this conclusion, reaching this In reaching Id In 24

26 26 3 3 Forensic Eval. at 77 (emphasis Forensic in original). (emphasis in original). 27 People of vs. Kyle of Guam vs. Richard Murray Kyle Richard J

28 Criminal Criminal Case CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. re. Defendant's Motion Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Evaluation Page 6 of18 18 u

I

that Defendant described the events events of of the evening, evening, as as he recalled recalled them, them, but but that he claims to have 1

22 no recollection of of the events leading leading to to his his arrest and that he "blacked out" until he recalls being

3 arrested. Id arrested. at 8. According to the Forensic Evaluation report, Id at 4 It appears that the the alcohol alcohol use use and subsequent black out played a significant role in 5 evening played how the evening played out. out. In my my opinion, opinion, having having his his untreated untreated mental illness of of bipolar disorder disorder and and anxiety anxiety disorder did not result result in Kyle stabbing his father. Kyle stabbing his father. 6 Having the mental illnesses can cause someone someone to to turn tum to illegal drugs and alcohol 7 to self-medicate, self-medicate, which which can then exacerbate exacerbate a person's mental illness symptoms (e.g., hallucinate hallucinate more, more, be more suicidal, or more violent). In Kyle's situation, situation, he 8 had a good day at work and settled down at home with a pizza and some beer. He had greeted his parents before they parents before they left for for a party party and and then then for for some unknown 9 reason, he attacked his father. father. 10 10 Kyle did did not not offer offer a motive and there does does not not appear appear to be a motive offered by his 11 parents

12 12 In Ki the the past, past, Kyle Kyle has has drunk drunk alcohol alcohol before before and has blacked out in the past before 13 too, but nothing nothing like this has has happened happened to him of this magnitude. magnitude.

14 14 So, in my opinion, opinion, itit appears appears that as as a result of his his mental mental illness asas mentioned in the the Gua Guam sta statue, Mr Mr. Mur r Murray did not not lack lacksubstantial substantial capacity capacity too know know or or 15 15 understand understand what he was doing, to control his his actions, actions, and to know or or understand understand 16 16 that his that his conduct was was wrongful. Although I would concede wrongful. Although concede that that for for these these three three conditions, he conditions, he offered offered no explanation explanation for his violent violent conduct, conduct, but thethe conduct conduct 17 occurred, seemingly seemingly without without motive motive or or premeditation, premeditation, despite despite his his mental illness. 4 mental illness.4 18 E. E Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for for aaSecond Second Forensic Evaluation Evaluation 19 19 On January 20, 2023, 2023, during during aa further further proceedings proceedings hearing on the Forensic Evaluation, the 20

Defendant's Defendant'scounsel counselorally orallyrequested requestedthe theCourt Courtgrant grant aa second second evaluation evaluation on on the the basis that defense defense 21

Hz 22 counsel disagreed with the finding finding that that Defendant Defendant did did not not lack lack substantial substantial capacity capacity at the time at the time of of 23 the incident. Hearing Minutes Minutes at at 09:45:58 09:45:58 AM AM to 9:46:42 the incident. Hearing 9:46:42 AM (Jan. (Jan. 20, 20, 2023). 2023). TThe he Court Court 24 24

26 4 Forensic Evaluation at 9. 4 Forensic Evaluation at 9. \ 27 27 People People of Guam vs. a/Guam vs. Kyle Kyle Richard Richard Murray Murray 28 Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0702-22 CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for Second Forensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation Page Page 7 of of 18 18 request be made mandated that the request in writing made in pursuant to writingpursuant Criminal Procedure to Criminal RuleCR ProcedureRule of CR1.1.1(b) of 1

2 the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam and subsequently both parties tiled memoranda parties filed

3 request. See Mot. for Second and in opposition to the request. support and in support authorities in with points and authorities 4 Forensic Eval. (Feb. 1, Evil. (Feb. 2023), People's 1, 2023); Def.'s Mot. Opp, to Def.'s People's Opp, Eval. (Feb. Mot. for Second Forensic Evil. 15, (Feb. 15, 5 2023). 2023). 6

Defendant's request Defendant's is for a second request is evaluation with another forensic expert to examine second evaluation 7

8 the defendant and the defendant to report and to report upon upon his his mental mental condition condition under under §§ 7.25(b) 7.25(b) on on the the basis basis that that "Mr. "Mr.

9 that is alleged to have occurred on November incident that Murray does not seem to remember remember the incident November 25, 10 10 2022." Mot. 3. Moreover, Mot. at 3. counsel for the Defendant urges that although the Defendant may Moreover, counsel 11 seem seem to to understand the nature understand the ofthe nature of proceedings,"." ... the proceedings, ofJ his because [[of] _ .because mental disorder, he may be his mental 12 12

13 1 and cooperate unable to assist and with counsel, cooperate with the reported counsel, because of the "black out." Id. reported "black Id

14 People oppose The People Motion, arguing oppose the Motion, that "Dr. Rapadas's arguing that satisfies the 9 GCA evaluation satisfies Rapadas's evaluation 15 15 §§ 7.25 7.25 requirements, requirements, and and Defense Defense Counsel Counsel can canobtain obtain further further clarification clarification regarding regarding substantial substantial 16 16 capacity and the 'black out' capacity and out' period questioning Dr. byquestioning period by Rapadas rather Dr. Rapadas than obtaining rather than another obtaining another 17 17 evaluation." See People's Opposition to Defendant's evaluation." See Motion for Defendant's Motion Second Forensic for Second Evaluation, Forensic Evaluation, 18 18

19 19 Feb. 15, 2023.

20 following Motion, defense counsel engaged in the following During the hearing on Defendant's Motion, 21 query of examination on the issue of whether Defendant lacked Rapadas during his direct examination of Dr. Rapadas 22 substantial capacity at the time of the alleged incident:55 the time 23

26 26 5 Competency Hearing of08/18/2023 9:48:54 AM at 9:48:54 of08/18/2023 at (8/18/23). AM(8/18/23). to 9:53:54 AM 5 Competency AM to 27 27 a/Guam vs. People 0/'Guam Kyle Richard Murray vs. Kyle 28 CriminalCase Criminal CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision and Decision re. Defendant's Motion and Order re. Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Evaluation Page 8 ofl8 Page of 18 SABLAN: SABLAN Rapadas, you indicated that So, Dr. Rapadas, that uh uhmymyclient. told you client...told that he you that 1 blacked out during the events? 2 RAPADAS: Yes. RAPADAS SABLAN: Would Would you you consider that an inability of consider that him to ofhim assist in his defense to assist 3 because he remember or he doesn't remember recall the or recall events that the events occurred that that occurred that are alleging? they are 4 RAPADAS: uh, RAPADAS yeah., when uh, yeah., someonetells whensomeone tellsmemethey blackout, theyblack out,I Ijust .. .I can't just...I ... can't... 5 I wasn't there to wasn't there see ififhe to see blacked out. he blacked out. SoSo when someone reports it, when someone I don't usually take don't usually thatitit as... that it's the or not take itIr that as ... that it's true not coz coz I can't can't 6 confirm it SABLAN: And And you're you'reaware he's been suffering from that he's aware that some type of from some ofmental 7 illness since he was in in his teens? 8 RAPADAS RAPADAS: That's That's correct. SABLAN: And he suffers from some type of bipolar that he And that bipolar disorder? 9 RAPADAS RAPADAS: : Yes. SABLAN:2 SABLAN:: And ... howdid And...how didyou cometotothe youcome conclusionin theconclusion inyour report that yourreport that he did 10 not lack the substantial lack the capacity when substantial capacity indicated ... that when he's indicated that he II 11 blacked out and he he doesn't doesn't know know what happened? what happened? RAPADAS: Of, RAPADAS Ok,so soare are we weassuming assuming he's competent, then? [Be]cause from there he's competent, 12 12 I can can go into NGR ... into the NGR...NGRI. 13 13 SABLAN: don'twant Well, IIdon't wanttotomakemakethat assumption because thatassumption because we we areare still argument that making the argument thathe'she's not competent at this point, butifwe at this point, but if we 14 14 make an can make an alter[native] argumentthat a1ter[native] argument ... the court does find him that...if competent -- right? competent right?-- 15 15 RAPADAS:3 Ok.... RAPADAS 16 SABLAN: competent . . . then legally competent then howhow is the the . . . can you answer that you answer that question? 17 17 RAPADAS: Ok, so it's RAPADAS2 it's "how couldhe "howcould havenot hehave substantial capacity ififhe says notsubstantial says he blacked out?" out'?" That's That's the question. 18 18 SABLAN: Yeah. Where Where did did you get that you get information and that information and how did you come to 19 19 that conclusion? RAPADAS RAPADAS:_' OK. OK. So the reason So the that I spelled out here reason that here was the what I try the... what and try and 20 do is ... try and information before and get some information before the incident the incident and and after the incident and and anything in-between. It is often anything in-between. that the often that defendant the defendant 21 either either has has no memory, blacks blacks out, or says they black out and/or they out, or says they black out and/or 22 have recollections of what's written totally different recollections have totally written in the police report or whatever witness es whatever witness that's not uncommon for him es said. So that's 23 to say say he blacked out. Because that's ... that happens. he blacked happens. Or Or they they say, "I "I have have no memory of no memory it, Dr. of it, Rapadas." So, I don't... Dr. Rapadas." ... ififhehehas any has any 24 24 history of black outs ofblack let'ssay outs -. let's because of saybecause alcohol-- then ofalcohol then IIput that put that 25 25 in because that happens in consideration, because happens as aswell. well.

27 People ofGuam vs. People of Murray vs. Kyle Richard Murray 28 Criminal Case Criminal CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and Defendant's Motion re. Defendant's and Order re. Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Evaluation Page 9 ofl8 Page of 18 People who People drink a lot of who drink alcohol report ofalcohol they do report they black out. So, my do black 1 position in this, since I can't this, since really confirm can't really that he confirm that he blacked out blacked out 2 because I'm because there and it's not there I'm not it's hard to say hard to when someone say when blacked someone blacked out several monthsago, several months I'm not ago,isisI'm evidence, so not evidence, soII can't BE evidence. can't BE 3 Just basically, that's Just basically, what he that's what and make an inference So, I try and said. So, he said. on information ... that police ... that observed that police observed observed and that [inaudible] observed and 4 before he stuff that he told me before he blacked out. So, blacked out. in this So, in case he said this case 5 he was having a good day, he orderedpizza and he he was justjust relaxing relaxing then he and then blacks out. he blacks out. And think that's And I think where he that's where he talked about talked about 6 drinking lots of alcohol. drinking 7 Now in the Now in past he the past told me he had told that he me that has blacked out when he he has 8 a lot of alcohol. drinks lot of alcohol. And I've mentioned that often I've mentioned that times often times people with mental illnesses, instead mental illnesses, medicine, instead of using their medicine, 9 or drugs as a self-medication. alcohol or they use alcohol 10 10 So, I think So, case in thecase was the thatwas think that this case, in this that he case, that he was given was given 11 11 medication butbut chose alcohol as chose to use alcohol self-medication. And as a self-medication. And because he because hadan hehad experienceof anexperience ofblacking out - he's blackingout- actually had he's actually 12 was a there was so there before - so several, II think he had a DUI, several, maybe, before DUI,maybe, 13 history over-drinking, so history of him over-drinldng, so that he KNEW that he KNEW thatthat he was he was drinking. T hat, to drinking. That, me, that to Me, doesn't mean that doesn't that he mean that lacks he lacks 14 substantial capacity. He knew he He knew he was drinking, drinking, hehe chose todrink chose to drink pizza; and and relax, have a pizza; inference was, and my inference don't think he was,II don't 15 15 capacity that day. lacked substantial capacity 16 16 My Myjob to figure job isis to out [Defendant's] figure out mental state [Defendant's] mental [or] at state [or] least at least 17 17 infer mental state, infer aa mental state, have an opinion about it. opinion about My opinion is that, it. My you know, prior to to this, he's working, this, he's he's aa civil working, he's engineering civil engineering 18 student, so here's someone who, despite someone who, having mental illness, is despite having 19 still able to still able function. And to function. that this And that could have this could happened have happened probably becausebecause of alcohol, which he knew much alcohol, of too much that knew that 20 20 sometimes he blacks out., Lrmetimes.L 21 So up until that up until that time didn't lack after, he giidn't. time and after, substantial lack substantial 22 22 capacity.66 capaci_ty

23 23

26 66 Id. (Emphasis added). Id. (Emphasis 27 People of Guam vs. ofGuam Kyle Richard Murray vs. Kyle 28 28 Criminal Case Criminal CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and Defendant's Motion re. Defendant's and Order re. Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Evaluation Page 10 oflS18 Dr. Rapadas did, however, Rapadas did, that the however, opine that may have Defendant may the Defendant suffering from aa have been suffering I

2 2 "diminished capacity":77 "diminished

3 3 RAP ADAS: RAPADAS put "diminished capacity" Now, II put Now, because that there is a history only because capacity"only history of ofmental but not to the illness, but mental illness, like, say the point where, like, someone had say someone had 4 some unreal of hallucinations unreal experience of hallucinations that his father was a devil was devil 5 anything like that or anything which is that -- which common in is common the forensic in the realm, to forensic realm, people have find NGRI where people schizophrenia, psychosis have schizophrenia, and maybe psychosis and 6 brain damage. But in damage. But in this case, it's this case, it's a mood disorder that that is severe; severe, but, my opinion, the severe mood disorder contributed to but, in my to alcohol 7 7 use, not taking his medication, and and making poorpoor choices and that his choices and 8 capacity may Capacity have been diminished at the may have the time even even though he said out. II don't have any he blacked out. any other because I other explanation for it because 9 wasn't and there was no there and wasn't there showing his no video showing black out his black state. out state. 10 Later, defense counsel asked defense counsel Rapadas how certain asked Dr. Rapadas mental state did certain he was that Defendant's mental 11 11 "a big not play "a part" in big part" the crime inthe he is crime he accused of is accused committing. In ofcommitting. response, Dr. Inresponse, Rapadas reiterated Dr. Rapadas 12

13 his opinion that his is that opinion is Defendantwas thatDefendant "capableof was"capable choosing" and did of choosing" choose to did choose self-medicate with to self-medicate

14 14 alcohol rather medication, and rather than his prescribed medication, he knew and he thatdrinking knew that alcohol could lead him drinking alcohol

15 15 to black out: out: 16 I believe alcohol, in believe alcohol, the past in the especially, was past especially, was [Defendant's] choice of [Defendant's] choice 17 17 medication. And so, people And so, can tend people can to over tend to drink and overdrink happen. I'm and things happen. I'm just assuming becausealcohol thatbecause assuming that can cause alcohol can blackouts[and] causeblackouts becauseII don't [and] because don't think 18 18 he has history of seizure disorder, alcohol can has a history can cause blackouts. So cause blackouts. So that's my 19 19 assumption. as far That's as assumption. That's as II can go because far as taking his mood because he was not taking disorder medicine. It's disorder medicine. that people choice that It's a choice make, but people make, it's not but it's prudent, notprudent, 8 20 obviously, not clinically and not obviously, and appropriate. clinicallyappropriate.8 21 opinion, defense counsel Notwithstanding this opinion, inquired whether, counsel inquired if Defendant did suffer from a whether, if 22 seizure disorder -,- of which has been which there has noindication beenno onthe indication on recordof therecord this matter- of this if that would matter if would 23 23

make and Dr. Rapadas any difference and make any agreed that Rapadas agreed seizure disorder that seizure multitude of other disorder-- among a multitude 24 24

77 Id. at 9:54:00 AM to 9:55:20AM. 26 26 Id. at 9:54:00 AM to 9:55:20 AM. s8 Id. Id. at at 9:56:30 9:56:30AM AM to to 9:57:11 9:57:11AM. AM. 27 People of vs. Kyle of Guam vs. Murray Kyle Richard Murray 28 Criminal Case Criminal CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Defendant's Motion re. Defendant's Decision and Order re. Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Evaluation Page 11 Page oflS 11 of 18 reasons, including drinking reasons, including alcohol,taking drinkingalcohol, illicit drugs, takingillicit andeven drugs, and "falling down" - could even"falling cause aa couldcause 1

2 person to out. Dr. to black out. Rapadas concluded Dr. Rapadas that the Defendant had concluded that the capacity had the the make the capacity to make

3 in the resulted in that ultimately resulted choices that choices black out the black state which out state he assumed, which he representation of assumed, on the representation of 4 the Defendant,did, the Defendant, infact, did,in occur.Id. fact,occur. 10:00:19AM. to 10:00:19 AM to 10:00:05AM at 10:00:05 Id at AM. 5 Dr. Rapadas During examination by the People, Dr. testified that Rapadas testified despite Defendant's long- that despite 6

mental illness term mental diagnoses, there illness diagnoses, was no there was prior recorded no prior incidence of recorded incidence violent behavior of violent other behavior other 7

8 than on than the night alleged in on the the Indictment. in the The inference, Indictment. The therefor, is inference, therefor, that the is that Defendant's the Defendant's

9 black out on the night of the or black mental illness alone was not the cause diagnosed mental of his behavior or cause of 10 10 9 alleged incident, alleged but his choice incident, but to consume choice to the alcohol which consume the he knew which he could lead knew could toaablack lead to out. blackout.9 II 11 LEGAL ANALYSIS LEGAL ANALYSIS 12 12

113 Defendant challenges Dr. Defendant challenges Rapadas's conclusions Dr. Rapadas's in the conclusions in Forensic Evaluation the Forensic that (1) Evaluation that (1)

14 14 Defendant is competent to is competent be proceeded to be be sentenced proceeded against and to be and (2) sentenced and (2) that the Defendant 15 15 did not lack substantial capacity to know or lack substantial understand what or understand hewas what he doing, to control his actions was doing, 16 16 to know or understand and to thathis understandthat conductwas hisconduct wrongful.He waswrongful. seeksaa"second Heseeks forensic evaluation "secondforensic 17 17 to assist the Court assist the making a determination Court in making of Mr. Murray's determinationof competency to Murray's competency stand trial to stand and be trial and 18 18

19 19 and whether proceeded against and ornot whetheror hewas nothe suffering from any wassuffering mental illness, any mental disease or defect illness, disease

20 ofthe time of at the time allegedconduct the alleged and whether conduct and he lacked whether he substantial capacity lacked substantial to know capacity to know or 21 understand whathe understand what wasdoing; hewas or understand doing, or to know or thathis understand that conductwas his conduct wrongful or to waswrongful 22 22 actions; or the extent to control his actions, consequence of to which as a consequence disease or defect, mental illness, disease of mental 23 23

25 25 9 Id. 9 at 10:04:42 Id. at 10:04:42 AM to 10:05:15 AM to 10:05:15 AM. indicatedtotoDr. Defendantindicated AM.Defendant Rapadasduring Dr.Rapadas his evaluation duringhis evaluation that he that he believes he 26 11 beers. consumed 11 27 People ofofGuam vs. Murray vs. Kyle Richard Mur 28 28 Criminal Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0702-22 CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Page 12 of18 Page \

he did or or the capacity to have a state of mind relevant to any or did not have a state of mind or issue any issue 1

2 2 at trial." Mot. at trial." Mot. 1. Defendant at 1. also seeks Defendant also of the court seeks an order of "another forensic expert court for "another to expert to

3 [sic] Mr. Murray of [sic] examine of report on his mental Murray and report condition" and mental condition" to determine and to whether, determine whether, 4 of his mental disorder and reported "black out" during the alleged incident, he is unable because of 5 and cooperate to assist and with counsel in his defense. Mot. at 3 (emphasis added). cooperate with 66

It is unclear to the unclear to Court whether the Court Defendant seeks merely a second forensic evaluation by whether Defendant 7

8 someone other someone tha n Dr. other than a pa da s, or Dr . Rapadas, he is or ifif he Court to employ aan seeking ann order of the C is seeking

9 independent expert witness to assist in his defense. However, based upon the pleadings on file 10 10 with the Court this matter and the oral Court in this competency hearing, oral argument during the competency Court hearing, the Court 11 interprets the instant interprets the Motion as instant Motion seeking a second opinion, and not an as seeking expert witness, under the an expert 12 12 10 13 1 Court's Court's discretionary discretionary authority authoritypursuant pursuantto to 99GCA GCA§§7.25.10 7.25.

14 A. The The Court thatDefendant finds that Court finds competent to Defendantisis competent to stand trial and stand trial denies the and denies Motion for a second Motion for a second evaluation evaluation on on the the question question of of competency. competency. 15 15

16 matter, once a Defendant places his or As a preliminary matter, her mental or her state at mental state issue, the at issue,

17 17 provisions off GCA provisions of9 GCA§§7.25 7.25 dictate dictate the the process by which competency competency to to be be proceeded proceeded against against and and 18 18 as whether to be sentenced as well as the Defendant whether the lacked the Defendant lacked substantial capacity, the substantial alia, to capacity, inter alia, 19 19 understand understand the the wrongfulness wrongfulness of ofor or to to control control his his actions. actions. 99 GCA GCA §§ 7.25 7.25 provides provides in in relevant relevant part: part: 20

Whenever aa plea (a) Whenever of not plea of guilty by not guilty reason of by reason of mental illness, disease or defect is mental illness, 21 entered entered or or aa notice notice is is given given under § 7.22, the court shall under § 7 .22, the court shall appoint one appoint at least one 22 qualified psychiatrist or qualified psychiatrist or other person (hereinafter qualified person other qualified referred to (hereinafter referred as to as to examine the defendant and to report upon his mental condition. psychiatrist) to 23 23

24 24 ° 1 10 Cf Cf People of Guam vs. ofGuam Khozhiev, Criminal Akmal Khozhiev, vs. Akmal Criminal Case No. CF0566-21, Granting Def.'s and Order Granting Decision and CF0566-21, Decision De£'s 25 25 Motion Psychiatrist and Independent Psychiatrist forIndependent Motion for Evaluation (Jun. 30, 2022). In the instant Confidential Evaluation (Jun. 30, 2022). In the instant case, and Confidential although case, although Defendant indicates that Defendant indicates state will that his mental state significant factor will be a significant at trial, factor at he has trial, he the requirements for has not satisfied the for 26 26 establishing the establishing need for an independent expert the need to assist expert to in presenting assist in complete defense. presenting aa complete Khozhiev; People defense. See Khozhiev; v. People v. Callahan, Callahan, 27 People ofof Guam vs. Kyle Guam vs. Richard Murray Kyle Richard Murray 28 Criminal CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Criminal Case Decision Decision and re. Defendant's Motion and Order re. Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Page 13 of18 Page 1

1 Whenever, in (b) Whenever, in the the opinion opinion of of the court, any other other expert expert evidence evidence concerning the 2 defendant's mental mental condition condition is, is, or or will will be be required required by by the the court court or or either either party, the court shall shall appoint appoint one one or more more such experts to to examine the defendant and 3 to report upon upon his mental condition as the court may direct. 4 c) In addition (c) addition to to the expert expert witness witness appointed appointed by the court, court, either party party in a 5 criminal action may retain other psychiatrists experts to psychiatrists or other experts to examine the defendant and defendant and to to report upon his mental condition. condition. Experts retained pursuant to Experts retained 6 this Section shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the defendant for for 7 the purposes of examination and thethe giving of testimony. * * * 8 *** (f) Copies of of any reports, records, records, documents or information furnished furnished by either 9 party to to the the psychiatrists psychiatrists appointed appointed pursuant to this Section shall be given to the 10 10 other other party in the action. Any psychiatrist appointed appointed pursuant pursuant to this Section, or retained by either party, retained party, shall shall have have the the right right to to inspect inspect and and make copies of of 11 reports and records reports relating to records relating to the defendant in any any facility or institution in facility or institution 12 which they are located. Compliance with this Section may be required by an appropriate order of the court. 113

(g) Each psychiatrist appointed by thethe court who who examines the defendant defendant pursuant 14 to this this Section shall file file a written written report report with with the the clerk of the court who shall 15 party. *** deliver copies to each party.

16 16 99 G.C.A. G.c.A. §§ 7.25. 7.25. 17 17 "A defendant "A defendant isis incompetent incompetentto to be be proceeded proceededagainst againstininaacriminal criminal action action if, if, as as aa result of of 18

19 19 mental i11ness...he illness ... he isis unable unable (1) (1) to to understand understand the the nature nature of the proceedings, (2) to assist assist and and

20 20 cooperate with cooperate with counsel, counsel, (3) (3) to to follow follow the evidence, or (4) to participate in his participate in his defense." See 9 21 GCA GCA §§ 7.37(a)(1)-(4). An incompetent 7.37(a)(l)-(4). An incompetent defendant defendant may may not not be be tried tried or or convicted convicted in in aa criminal criminal 22 proceedings, and proceedings, and this this notion is "fundamental "fundamental to an an adversary adversary system system of of justice, justice, . . . [because] [because] 23 23 [c]ompetence to stand trial rudimentary, for trial is rudimentary, for upon upon it depends the main part part of of those those rights rights 24 24

25 deemed deemed essential essential to to aa fair fair trial, including the right to effective assistance of of counsel, counsel, the the rights rights to to 26 26 summon, to summon, to confront, and to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to to testify testify on on one's one's own behalf behalf 27 27 People of Guam vs. a/Guam vs. Kyle Kyle Richard Murray Murray 28 Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. Defendant's Deflendant'sMotion Motion for Second Forensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation Page 14 14 of18 )

or to to remain penalty for without penalty remain silent without doing so." for doing Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, Riggins v. Nevada, so." Rigging 139-140 127, 139-140 1

2 (1992)(Kennedy, concurring). Competency J., concuning). (1992)(Kennedy, J., turns on whether Competency turns criminal defendant whether aa criminal "has defendant "has

3 ability to present ability sufficient present sufficient with his consult with to consult with aa reasonable lawyer with his lawyer degree of reasonable degree rational ofrational 4 . . . . understanding understanding -- and has a rational and whether he has aswell rational as factual understanding well as factual of the proceedings understandingof 5 against him." against Dusky v. him." Dusky United States, v. United 362 U.S., States, 362 at 402 U.S., at (1960). Generally, 402 (1960). the "[t]est for Generally, the 6

7 competency to stand whether the defendant has stand trial is whether sufficient present has sufficient ability to consult with present ability 7

8 8 his lawyer lawyer with with aareasonable degree ofofrational reasonable degree understanding and rationalunderstanding whether he and whether has aa rational he has as rational as

9 9 well well as against him." proceedings against the proceedings of the understanding of as aa factual understanding v. Guerrero, 2001 Guam People v. him."People 10 10 19, 19, '133 ,i 33 (Aug. (Aug. 16, 16, 2001)(quoting 2001)(quoting Boat Boag v. v. Raines, 769 F.2d 1341, 1341, 1343 1343 (9th (9th Cir.1985)(internal Cir.1985)(internal 11 citations omitted)). omitted)). 12 12

13 The Court the report Court has considered the of the Forensic Evaluation report of conducted by Dr. Rapadas, Evaluation conducted

14 14 his swam sworn testimony during Competency Hearing the Competency during the onthis Hearingon matter and this matter argument on and the parties' argument 15 15 the the record and and finds that Dr. finds that Rapadas evaluation Dr. Rapadas's is sufficient evaluation is under the sufficient under circumstances to the circumstances 16 16 establish that the establish that the Defendant Defendant is competent to currently competent is currently proceeded against. to be proceeded the against. Although the 17 17 18 history of mental Defendant has a history illness, despite mental illness, this long-standing despite this diagnoses, he long-standing diagnoses, has been able he has 18

19 19 to complete complete his high education, serve school education, high school as a federal serve as firefighter, enroll federal firefighter, in (although enroll in not (although not

20 20 studies in civil commence) studies and to be gainfully, successfully employed engineering and civil engineering with potential employed with 21 for for advancement the company advancement in the he was employed prior to his company in which he case. The his arrest in this case. The 22 22 Court has the portions identified the painstakinglyidentified has painstakingly of the portionsof record of the Competency Hearing which the record 23

24 support its findings support its of competency. findings of 24

25 Defendant argues becausehe argues that because he"blacked and does not remember or recall the "blacked out" and acts the acts

26 26 of ofwhich which he is being accused, claim of having The claim competency.The ofcompetency. lackof hislack questionhis intoquestion calls into thiscalls accused, this 27 27 People of vs. Kyle of Guam vs. Murray Kyle Richard Murray 28 Criminal Criminal Case CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Evaluation Page 15 of18 1

out" while "blacked out" admitting to whileadmitting drinkingalcohol, todrinking under the alcohol,under circumstances, is insufficient to the circumstances, 1

2 2 Dr. Rapadas's finding that dispute Dr. dispute against. SeeSigh that he is currently competent to be proceeded against. v. Siah v.

3 3 837 P.2d 485, State, 837 State, Crim. App. 1992)(Defendant 485, 487 (Oklahoma Ct. Crum. claimed that 1992)(Defendant who claimed his that his 4 lifelonghistory lifelong alcoholabuse historyofofalcohol andalcohol abuseand inducedblackouts alcoholinduced made him blackouts made incompetent to him incompetent stand to stand 5 trial because he "blacked out" because he and cannot out" and night's events cannot remember the night's was deemed events was competent deemed competent 6

7 upon a Ending based upon based that the finding that defendant understood the defendant constitutional rights, understood his constitutional the rights, recognized the 7

s8 discuss his witnesses against him and could discuss pastrelationship his past with them). As relationship with such, the Court shall As such,

9 9 competency to his competency respect to his with respect evaluation with second evaluation for aasecond Motion for Defendant's Motion DENY Defendant's be to be 10 10 . . . proceeded against proceeded in thls against in case. this case. 11 11 B. B. The Courtfinds The Court thatDefendant finds that entitledtotoaasecond Defendantisisentitled forensic evaluation on second forensic 12 12 question of whether he the understand the capacity to understand substantial capacity lacked substantial he lacked the question 13 1 wrongfulness of his actions or to control his actions at actions or at the time of the alleged incident. 14

15 15 The Defendant made a preliminary Defendant made showing that preliminary showing his sanity that his atthe sanity at time of thetime the offense is of the 16 16 likely to be likely to significantfactor be aa significant attrial factorat and, despite trialand, Dr. Rapadas's despite Dr. opinion that Rapadas's opinion Defendant did not that Defendant 17 17 substantial capacity, lack substantial the oft-cited capacity, the SupremeCourt oft-cited Supreme caseofAke Courtcase 105 S. Ct. 1087, Oklahoma, 105 Ake v. Oklahoma, 18 18

19 19 1096 (1985), supports 1096 second evaluation supports granting his request for aa second on this evaluation on question. Aka this question. 1091- at 1091- Ake at

20 1092 made aapreliminary defendant has made ("when aa defendant 1092 ("when his sanity preliminary showing that his atthe sanity at timeof thetime theoffense of the offense 21 is likely to be likely to significantfactor be aa significant trial,the factoratattrial, Constitutionrequires theConstitution that aa State requires that access to State provide access 22 22 assistance on a psychiatrist's assistance thisissue on this thedefendant issueifif the cannototherwise defendantcannot affordone."). otherwiseafford one."). 23

Although the Court Although Court finds finds that this Constitutional that this mandate was Constitutional mandate the satisfied with the was satisfied 24 24

25 25 appointment and competent neutral and of a neutral appointment of Rapadas, certain matters competent evaluator in Dr. Rapadas, which were matters which

26 26 the Motion of the hearing of the hearing during the raised during Motion compel grant the to grant Court to the Court compel the the question of the request on the of 27 27 People of vs. Kyle ofGuam vs. Richard Murray Kyle Richard 28 28 Criminal Criminal Case CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision and Order re. Decision and Defendant's Motion re. Defendant's Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Evaluation Page of18 Page 16 of \

\

mental state Defendant's mental time of state at the time the alleged ofthe offense. Specifically, during allegedof%nse. hearing, the hearing, during the 1

2 questionsof defense counsel raised questions whetheraaseizure of whether disordermight seizuredisorder explainthe mightexplain "blackout" the"black or if out" or if

3 provider might facility or service provider treatment facility any off-island treatment records from any records affect Dr. might affect Rapadas's Dr. Rapadas's 4 opinions, suggesting to the Court that the Defendant may have grounds to support the Court defense of support aa defense of 5 lack of substantial capacity. The substantial capacity. assertsthat The Defendant further asserts anotherexpert's thatanother review would aid expelt'sreview 6

in the preparation of such Rapadas opined Dr. Rapadas such a defense. Indeed, Dr. that Defendant opined that may have Defendant may had a have had 7

8 "diminished "diminished capacity" capacity"at ofthe the time of at the alleged offense, the alleged therefore,the offense;therefore, Courtfinds theCourt that Defendant finds that

9 is entitled entitled to aa second evaluation evaluation on on this question. 10 10 circumstances and Under the circumstances despitethe anddespite Court's finding the Defendant is competent to be theCourt's 11 11 proceeded proceeded against, against, 99 GCA GCA §7.25(b) § 7 .25(b)gives givesthe theCourt Courthe thediscretion discretiontotoappoint appointaa second second psychiatrist psychiatrist 12

13 13 on the issue issue of of Defendant's Defendant's mental status statusat atthe ofthe timeof thetime alleged offense. thealleged the Court offense. Therefore, the

14 14 exercises its its discretion discretion and and orders orders the the Defendant second forensic undergo aa second Defendant undergo evaluation and forensic evaluation that and that

15 15 Client Client Services Services and and Family Family Counseling thisCourt Divisionofofthis Counseling Division schedule aa second Courtschedule evaluation by second evaluation 16 16 another neutral neutral evaluator. evaluator. As As required under each psychiatrist under Section 7.25(b), each appointed by the psychiatrist appointed 17 court who examines the defendant pursuant pursuanttotothis shallfile Sectionshall thisSection written report with the clerk file a written 18 1

11 19 19 of ofcourt court who who shall shall deliver delivercopies copiestotoeach eachparty. party.11

20 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the above reasons, Defendant's Motion reasons, Defendant's in part, GRANTED, in Motion is GRANTED, and DENIED, part, and in DENIED, in 22 22 part. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motionfor foraasecond second evaluation on the evaluation on Defendant's competency to the question of Defendant's 23

25 11 Because 11 the witness, the expert witness, an expert as an health expert appointed as mental health second evaluation is not an independent mental this second Because this 26 of Section provisions of 7.25(b) regarding Section 7.25(b) disclosure of regarding disclosure second expert's the second ofthe witness to expert's witness the People to the and the People and Defendant the Defendant apply. 27 People ofa/Guam vs.Kyle Guan1 vs. Richard Murray Kyle Richard Murray 28 28 Criminal CaseNo. No. CF0702-22 CF0702-22 Decision Decision and and Order re. re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion for Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Evaluation Page 17 of18 Page of I

proceeded against be proceeded Defendant's Motion against is DENIED. Defendant's for aa second Motionfor evaluation on second evaluation of on the question of 1

22 capacity based substantial capacity whether Defendant lacked substantial upon his based upon claim that his claim he "blacked out" is that he

3 GRANTED.I GRANTED 4 SO ORDERED this ~nov 16 2023 5

HONORA LE MARIA T. CENZON 7 Judge, Superior Court of Guam Guam 8

10 10

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

27 People ofa/Guam vs. Kyle Guam vs. Richard Murray Kyle Richard Murray 28 Criminal Case Criminal CF0702-22 Case No. CF0702-22 Decision Decision and Defendant's Motion re. Defendant's and Order re. Second Forensic Evaluation for Second Motion for Evaluation Page 18 of 18