gr FII LED CLERK OF CGURT COURT 1l 202~ AUG 20214 AUG-8-8 PH PM up ~: 13
3 2 SUPERIOR CGURT SUPERIGR COURT OF GUAM OF i-° (7rf\ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 4
5 OF GUAM, THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, 6 Case No. No. CF0026-21 CF0026-21 7 vs. GPD CaseNo. No. 21-01607
DECISION DECISION AND ORDER ORNELLAS, 9 (Finding (Finding Defendant Defendant Not Not Competent Competent to DOB: DOB: 08/16/1980 Stand Trial Trial by by Reason Reason ofof Mental Mental 10 10 Illness, Illness, Disease, or Defect) Disease, or Defendant. Defendant. 11 11
12 12
13 14 This matter came before matter came before the the Honorable HonorableAlberto Alberto E. E. Tolentino Tolentino on May 6, 6, 2024, 2024, for aa 15 Competency Competency Hearing. Hearing. Defense Defense Attorneys Attorneys William Pole, Pole, Esq. Esq. and and Terence Terence Timblin, Timblin, Esq. Esq. 16 appeared for Donovan appeared for DonovanAllen Allen Chargualaf ChargualafOrnellas Omellas("Defendant"). ("Defendant"). Assistant Assistant Attorney Attorney General General 17 17 Sean appearedfor Sean Brown appeared forthe thePeople Peopleof of Guam Guam ("People"). ("People"). Having Havingconsidered considered Defendant's Defendant's 18 18 Forensic Evaluation, Evaluation, the the arguments, and the arguments, and the applicable applicable law, the Court hereby finds Defendant 19 19 not competent to stand trial trial by by reason reason of of Mental MentalIllness, Illness,Disease, Disease, or Defect. 20 BACKGROUND 21
22 22 On January 29,2021, January 29, 2021,the theGrand GrandJury Juryindicted indictedDefendant Defendantononthe thefollowing following charges: charges: (1) (1)
23 23 Murder (As aa First Murder (As First Degree Degree Felony) Felony) Special Special Allegation: Allegation: Use Use of of aa Deadly Deadly Weapon Weapon in in the the
24 Commission ofaFelony, Commission of Felony, (2) Murder (As aa First Degree Felony) Felony) Special Special Allegation: Allegation: Use Use of of a 25
27 Decision and Decision and Order Case No. CF0026-21, People v. CF0026-21, People v. Ornellas Ornellas Page 1 ofll f 11 11 Deadly Deadly Weapon in.the Commission ofa Felony Weapon in_ Felony,, and (3) Aggravated Assault Special Allegation: 2 Use of Use of aDeadly Weapon in the Commission Deadly Weapon Commission of a Felony. Indictment, January 29, 2021. Felony. Indictment, 3 On February 3, 2021, 2021, the the Court Court ordered ordered aa forensic forensic evaluation evaluation of of the the Defendant. Defendant. Order 4 5 for Forensic Evaluation, for Forensic Evaluation, February 3, 2021. February 3, 2021. Pursuant Pursuant to to 99 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 7.25, 7.25, the the Client Client Services Services and and 5 66 Family Counseling Division Division of of the the Superior Superior Court of of Guam ("CSFC") arranged arranged for Defendant
7 to undergo undergo a forensic evaluation with forensic evaluation with aa qualified psychologist. Id qualified psychologist. On February February 3, 3, 2021, 2021,
8 Defendant raised Defendant raised an affirmative affirmative defense of mental defense of mental illness, illness, disease, disease, or or defect. defect. Notice of Notice of
99 Affirmative Defense, February 3, 3, 2021. Defendant then 2021. Defendant then underwent underwent his his forensic evaluation with
10 Dr. Juan Rapadas, Rapadas, an an expert clinical clinical psychologist psychologist at at CSFC. First Forensic CSFC. First Forensic Evaluation, Evaluation, March 11 11 19,2021. 19, 2021. 12 12 On July July 22, 2021, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Parte Application for the the Appointment of a 13 13 Psychiatrist to to Conduct Conduct aa Second Second Forensic Forensic Evaluation. Evaluation. On December December 10, 10, 2021, the People filed 14 14 15 a Response Response in Opposition Opposition to Defendant's Defendant's Ex Parte Parte Application for the Application for the Appointment Appointment of a 15 16 Psychiatrist to Conduct Psychiatrist to Conduct aa Second Second Forensic Forensic Evaluation. Evaluation. On On April April 20, 20, 2022, 2022, the Court Court issued a 16
17 17 decision decision and order order granting granting Defendant's Defendant's application application for the the appointment appointment of of aapsychiatrist. psychiatrist.
18 18 Decision & Order, Order, Ex Parte Parte Application for the Appointment of of aa Psychiatrist Psychiatrist to Conduct a
19 19 Second Forensic Evaluation. Evaluation. April April 20, 20, 2022. 2022. On On June June 20, 20, 2022, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to 20 20 Amend the Amend the Order Order for Second Evaluation and and Memorandum Memorandum of Points and and Authorities. Authorities. On June 21 22, 22, 2022, the People 2022, the People filed filed an Opposition to Amend the Opposition to the Order Order for for Second Second Evaluation Evaluation and and 22 Memorandum of of Points Points and and Authorities. Authorities. On June June 27, 27, 2022, 2022, Defenda Defendant filed filed a Reply to to 23 Government Objection to Government Objection to Amended (sic) the Order Order for for aa Second Second Forensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation and and 24 Examination. On July On July 27, 27, 2022, 2022, Defendant Defendant filed Order for filed an Amended Order for Second Second Forensic Forensic 25 26 Evaluation and Examination. On On September September12, 12, 2022, 2022, the the Court Court filed filed an an Order Order granting client 26
27 Decision Decision and and Order Case No. CF0026-21, People v. Ornellas l, People Page 2 of 11 Page 11 11 services more time to to conduct conduct aa second second evaluation. Defendant then evaluation. Defendant then underwent underwent aa second forensic 2 evaluation with Dr. Dr. Stephen H. H. Behnke. SecondForensic Behnke. Second Forensic Evaluation, Evaluation, February February 5, 5, 2024. 3 The Court held a hearing hearing on May May 6, 6, 2024, 2024, to todetermine determine Defendant's Defendant's competency competency to stand 4 5 trial. Minute trial. Minute Entry, Entry, May 6, 2024. After After hearing hearing the the arguments arguments of ofthe the parties, parties, the Court took the 5
66 matter under advisement.
8 "A "A defendant defendant isis incompetent incompetentto to be be proceeded proceededagainst againstininaacriminal criminalaction actionif, if, as as aa result of of
99 mental illness ... ...heheisisunable unable(1) (1)totounderstand understandthe thenature nature of ofthe the proceedings, proceedings, (2) (2) to to assist assist and
10 cooperate with counsel, (3) to follow the evidence, evidence, or or (4) to to participate participate in in his his defense." defense." 9 G.C.A. 11 11 §§ 7.37(a)(1)-(4). 7.37(a)(l)-(4). On On February February 3, 3, 2021, 2021, Defendant Defendant raised raised an an affirmative affirmative defense defense of of mental mental 12 12 illness, disease, or defect. Shortly thereafter, illness, disease, thereafter, the first first forensic forensic evaluation evaluation occurred in March March 13 13 2021, and Defendant 2021, and Defendant was was found found competent competenttotobe beproceeded proceededagainst. against.Id Id Per Per the the Defendant's 14 14 15 request, the Court ordered a second forensic forensic evaluation in July 2022 to to determine if Defendant 15 16 was competent to to stand trial. Id stand trial. Id 16
17 17 I. Forensic ForensicEvaluation Evaluation with with Dr. Dr. Rapadas
18 18 Defendant's Defendant's first first forensic evaluation was conducted conducted on on February February 25, 25, 2021 by Dr. Dr. Juan
19 19 Rapadas. Rapadas. During During the forensic evaluation, Defendant Defendant was administered (1) the MOCA (Montreal
20 20 Cognitive Assessment), (2) the Assessment), (2) the Adult Sentence Completion Test, (3) the MCMI-IV (Million (Million 21 th edition), (4) the BRIEF-A (Behavioral Rating Inventory of Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, 4th Multiaxial Inventory, edition), (4) the BRIEF-A (Behavioral Rating Inventory of 22 Executive Function-Adult Version), and (5) the ECST-R (Evaluation of Competency to Stand 23 Forensic Evaluation, Trial-Revised). First Forensic Evaluation, March 19, 19, 2021. 2021. After After being being informed informed that that the the 24 evaluator was employed employed by by the court, Defendant appeared to have an understanding understanding of of the above 25 26 facts his forensic facts about his forensic evaluation. evaluation. Id. Id. at at 2. 26
27 Decision Decision and and Order People v. Case No. CF0026-21, People v. Ornellas Ornellas 11 Page 3 of 11 11 Defendant wrote Defendant wrote a police police statement statement admitting admitting to using using ice/meth ice/meth the the morning morning of the of the 2 murder at murder atthe thevictim's victim's home. Id. Throughout home. Id. Throughout the interview, interview, Defendant's Defendant's history historywas was marked marked by 3 4 drug use. at4. use. Id. at 4. Defendant Defendantdropped dropped out out of ofhigh high school school and and afterward admitted admittedto to"getting "getting into 4 and involved involved in the the "drug "drug world" world" and finish school, school, which whichhe hedid." did." Id. Defendantalso Id Defendant also admitted admitted 5
6 6 that he losthis helost hisposition positionat atG4S G4SSecurity SecurityServices Services and andthe thepolice policereserves reservesbecause becausehe he"got "gotinvolved involved
7 7 with the "wrong group". group". He Hestarted startedmissing missingwork workand andcalling callingininsick, sick,and and in in 2018, 2018, he he tested tested
8 positive positive for for drugs". Id.Defendant drugs". Id. Defendantsaid saidhe heturned turned to drugs when failed failed to to "help "help his girlfriend girlfriend get
9 some justice justice for a sexual sexual assault assaultincident" incident" and and he heturned turnedtotodrugs dogs "to feel feel good good and and to feel feel at 10 10 peace peacewithin withinhis his mind". mind". Id. Id. 11 11 Defendant's appearance appearance atatthe thetime timeof of the theinterview interview was was neat neatwith withnormal hygiene. Id. normalhygiene. Id. 12 12 at 5. 5. His His posture posture was relaxed, and and he hewas wasfriendly friendly and andvery very respectful respectful during duringthe evaluation. Id. theevaluation. Id. 13 13 Defendant seemed interested and andmotivated motivated to to do do the thetesting testing correctly, correctly, he remembered details details of of 14 14 15 his recent and remote recent and remote past, past,and andmaintained maintainedgood goodeye contact.Id. eyecontact. Id. Defendant's Defendant's mood mood was was 15 16 euthymic with some some melancholia, melancholia,mostly mostlywhen whenspeaking speakingabout abouthis hiskids. lads.Id. Id Defendant's Defendant's speech speech 16
17 17 flow flow was was good goodand and his his speech easy to speech was easy understand. Id. to understand. Id. at at 6. 6. His His thought thought content was was good
18 18 and appropriatetotomood. and appropriate mood.Id. Id However, However,Defendant's Defendant'sfund fund of ofgeneral generalknowledge knowledge was was estimated estimated
19 19 to be "between "between low lowaverage averageand andaverage, average,at atbest, best, based based on on his reported educational, occupational, 20 and history". Id. academichistory". and academic Id. 21 Defendant scored a 25/30 Defendant scored 25/30on onthe theMOCA MOCA test, test, indicating someone that indicating someone that is is not not overtly 22 suffering suffering from overall cognitive cognitive weaknesses and/ormemory weaknesses and/or issues.Id. memoryissues. Id. The score score reflected 23 problems in delayed problems in delayed recall recall ability ability and andlanguage. language. Id. Id. The TheAdult AdultSentence Sentence Completion Completion test test 24 revealed revealed thought processes processesthat thatwere were"largely "largelylogical logical and andmostly mostlyeasy easyto tofollow" follow" and and "not bizarre 25 26 or psychotic in content psychotic in contentjust justvery very'wordy'". 'wordy"'. Id. Defendant's score on Defendant's score on the the MCMI-IV MCMI-IV test test 26
27 Decision Decision and and Order Case No. CF0026-21, People v. CF0026-21, People v. Ornellas Ornellas Page 4 of 11 11 11 suggested suggested disorders disorders "in "in the areas of Delusional Delusional Disorder and Other (or Unknown) Unknown) Substance Use 2 Disorder". Id. atat 8.8. The Disorder". Id. Thetest testsuggests suggeststhat thatthe the"following "followingpersonality personality disorder disorder fit fit him best: best: 3 4 Paranoid Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Narcissistic Personality Personality Type, Unspecified Unspecified Personality Disorder 4 (Negativistic) Type, Type, and and Unspecified Unspecified Personality Personality Disorder Disorder (melancholic) Type. Id. (melancholic) Type. Id. The The results results 5
66 of that Defendant of the MCMI-IV protocol suggest that Defendant has has "at least a moderate moderate degree degree of pathology" pathology"
7 which "characterizes his his overall overall personality personality organization". organization". Id. Id. at 9. 9. The The ECST-R ECST-R (Evaluation (Evaluation
8 of Competency to to Stand Stand Trial-Revised) T-score below 65 revealed that it is very likely Trial-Revised) T-score likely that that
99 Defendant enda nt would ld ha ve f afactual have ct u a uunderstanding nder s nding of of t he thecou r t r oom p rproceedings, courtroom oceedings , r arational t iona
10 understanding of Id. at of the courtroom proceedings, and the ability to consult with counsel. Id. at 12. 12. 11 11 Based on the the tests tests conducted conducted and and the the forensic forensic interview, interview, Dr. Dr. Rapadas Rapadas concluded concluded that that 12 12 Defendant was Defendant was currently currently competent competent to to be proceeded against and and to tobe sentenced.Id. besentenced. Id. During During the 13 13 two and a half half hour interview, Dr. Rapadas Rapadas remarked that Defendant "never said anything or 14 14 displayed any behaviors that that could be be interpreted interpreted as as bizarre, bizarre, psychotic, or even just unusual". 15 15
16 Id. at 19. 19. There were a couple of of exceptions noted: 16
17 17 "There are a couple couple of of exceptions. exceptions. When When he he described described how how he he concluded concluded that that Mr. Castro Castro waswas a real real threat to him and threat to and his his family, family, he he talked talked about about colors, colors, deep deep 18 18 heritage, gestures and hand hand movements movements from the victim, victim, and devil imagery imagery that on its face, face, seemed seemed hallucinatory. hallucinatory. The second exception was when Donovan was 19 19 observed by police to be talking toto someone someone (sic) (sic) the the interview interview room room when when no one 20 was there."
21 Id. at 20.
22 22 Dr. Rapadas attributed attributed these these behaviors behaviors to to "transient "transient psychotic psychotic symptoms", and that Defendant
23 did not lack substantial capacity to to know know or understand understand what he was doing, doing, to to know know or understand understand
24 conduct was wrongful, or to that his conduct to control control his actions, actions, or or to to the the extent extent which, which, as as aa"consequence "consequence
27 Decision and Order Case No. CF0026-21, People v. Ornellas Page 5 of of 11 11 of of mental mental illness, illness, disease, disease, or or defect, defect, the the defendant defendant did not have a state state of mind mind relevant to the the 2 issues inthe issues in thetrial trialof ofaction". action". Id. Id. 3 II. II. Forensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation with with Dr. Behnke 4
Defendant's Defendant's second second forensic evaluation was conducted on July 25, 2022 by Dr. Stephen Stephen 5
6 6 Behnke. Second Forensic Behnke. Second Forensic Evaluation Evaluation at at 1, l, February 5, 2024. February 5, 2024. Defendant Defendant was basically oriented oriented
7 7 to time, person, person, place, and throughoutthe and object throughout theforensic forensicevaluation. evaluation. Forensic Evaluation Evaluation at 9.
8 Defendant's Defendant's flow and and speech speech quality quality were were normal, normal, only only becoming becoming pressured and difficult pressured and difficult to
9 9 interpret whendiscussing interpret when discussingcontent contentofofaareligious religiousnature. nature. Id. Id Defendant Defendantpossessed possessed aa rational rational
10 factual understandingof factual understanding of the the proceedings proceedings against against him him and and could fully fully articulate articulate his his current current 11 11 charges. charges. Id. at at 10. 10. Defendant Defendantwas was able able to to detail detail aspects aspects of his childhood, childhood, family family life, life, education, education, 12 and work history. and work history. Id Id.atat4.4.Defendant's Defendant'sdemeanor demeanorwas wascooperative cooperativeand andrespectful, respectful, laughing laughing at at 13 13 appropriate times appropriate times and and becoming emotional and becoming emotional and teary-eyed teary-eyed when when discussing discussing his his significant significant other other 14 14 V and children. Id. and children. Id at at 9. 15 15 It is is noteworthy noteworthy that that Defendant Defendant admitted admitted to to using usingmethamphetamine methamphetamine as an adolescent, 16 16
17 continuing to use continuing to usemethamphetamine methamphetaminethroughout throughout hishis adult adult life.Id.Id.Yet, life. Yet, despite despiteaalifelong lifelong history
18 18 of of recreational recreational drug drug use, use, Defendant is currently currently refusing refusing to take take any any psychiatric psychiatric medication, medication,
19 19 having been asked on at at least least two two occasions by mental health professionals at CFSC whether whether he he 20 20 would like to consider taking takingthem. them. Id. Id at at 9. 21 None of ofthe the psychological psychologicalassessment assessment tools tools used used in the the first forensic evaluation were re- 22 administered duringthe administered during thesecond secondforensic forensicevaluation, evaluation,but butwere werereviewed reviewed by Dr. Behnke Behnke for their 23 accuracy andconclusions. accuracy and conclusions.Id. Id ItItis is also also noteworthy noteworthy that the theMCMI-IV MCMI-IV Interpretive Interpretive Report from 24 the the first first forensic forensic evaluation evaluation states "this man states "this man exhibits exhibits a number number of of symptoms symptoms that that are are 25 26 characteristics of aa delusional characteristics of disorder, such delusional disorder, such as as transient transientideas ideasof of reference, reference, feelings feelings of of 26
27 Decision Decision and and Order Case No. CF0026-21, CF0026-21, People People v. v. Ornellas Ornellas Page 6 of 11 11 11 grandiosity, and irrational irrational jealousy he ruminates jealousy...he ruminates and and weaves his suspicions suspicions into a network of of 2 invalid beliefs". Id. beliefs". Id. 3 In the evaluation, Dr. Behnke emphasized that, when discussing the legal process outside 4
of the context of Defendant's own own case, case, Defendant Defendant could could correctly correctly explain the charges against 5
66 him and the legal process ("i.e. the role of court personnel, personnel, the meaning of evidence, the possible
7 consequences of consequences of a guilty guilty verdict, verdict, the difference difference between misdemeanor misdemeanor and felony, and the and felony,
8 advantages/disadvantages of advantages/disadvantages of aa plea plea bargain bargain depending dependingon onthe thestatus statusof ofone's one'sactual guilt"). Id. actualguilt"). Id
99 10. However, at 10. However, within within the the context context of of Defendant's Defendant's own own case, case, there there is is aa significant significant detachment detachment
10 from reality that isis indicative reality that indicative of ofaahigh highlevel levelof ofdelusional thinking. Id. delusionalthinking. The delusional Id. The delusional beliefs 11 include: 12 12
13 13 Defendant'scurrent 1) Defendant's currentcase, case, including including the the forensic forensic examiner, examiner, is is aa drama drama that that "reaches history and back deep into history and incorporates incorporates the cosmos in preparation preparation for the Second Second 14 14 Coming of of Christ ("Parousia"). 15 15 Worldleaders 2) World leaders"will "willMmtumtheir theirattention attentiontoto the the courtroom courtroom in in Guam Guam whenwhen the trial takes place", and the case will receive "global attention". attention". Defendant Defendant repeatedly repeatedly refers refers to 16 16 the coronation of King Charles of England in both his written and oral statements. Defendantbelieves 3) Defendant believesthat that"The "TheTruth" Truth"will willbe revealedtoto the berevealed the world world during during thethe trial, the 17 17 beginning of beginning of which which Defendant Defendant fervently seeks seeks to expedite. The The truth truth isis part part of of a 50+ page page "Parable "Parable Report", prepared by Report", prepared by Defendant, consisting of Defendant, consisting of 50+ 50+ pages pages of of 18 18 handwritten notes that mix passages of Scripture Scripture with with Defendant's Defendant's own commentary. 19 Thenotes 4) The notes ininthe the"Parable "Parable Report" Report" explain explain how how the the biblical biblical quotations quotations apply to Mr. 19 case and Ornellas' case and how the case fits into unfolding cosmic events. 20 Id Id. 21 Further, Defendant does not believe that a psychiatrist can conduct a forensic evaluation 22 without being able to also without being also conduct conduct a "psyche "psyche evaluation" evaluation" because because the Defendant, Defendant, like Mr. 23 Omellas Ornellas claims, is one claims, is one of "God's elect". Id.atat11. elect". Id 11.Defendant Defendantasserts asserts that, that, ifif an an evaluation evaluation of of 24 25 Defendant is not conducted by one of God's elect, elect, the evaluator evaluator will be "unable to discern the 25 26 26 difference between the TRUTH LIE". Id. This TRUTH and aa LIE". Thisisisbecause, because, as as one one of of God's elect, Defendant
27 Decision and Order Case No. CF0026-21,l, People v. Ornellas Page 7 of 11 11 believes that he possesses spiritual gifts, and that the trial must be interpreted in the context of 2 his "idiosyncratic" interpretation of "idiosyncratic" interpretation ofbiblical texts. Id. biblicaltexts. Id Defendant is aware aware that that other other people people 3 4 would think his beliefs crazy, and as such Defendant chooses to keep his thoughts to himself, 4 but nevertheless nevertheless "evinced "evinced scant ability ability to to reflect reflect on on the the contents contentsof ofthese thoughts". Id. thesethoughts". Id at 12. 12. 5
6 III. Analysis
7 Here, it isis evident Here, evident that that both bothevaluations evaluations were were conducted conducted under under much much different different
8 circumstances and time constraints, which ultimately produced different conclusions regarding
99 the Defendant's competency on the part of the the evaluators. evaluators. By Dr. Rapadas' own own admission, admission, he 10 . . u . u able to conduct one two-hour interview was only able interview with with the the Defendant Defendant during during the the first evaluation, 11 11 whereas Dr. Behnke was able to to conduct conduct four four extensive extensive interviews interviews with with the the Defendant. Defendant. Minute 12 12 10:38:45, May Entry at 10:38:45, 6, 2024. Further, May 6, Further, Dr. Dr. Rapadas Rapadas confirmed confirmed that that he he did did not not have access access to 13 13 the Defendant's Defendant's seven-page seven-page handwritten handwritten notes, notes, or or the fifty-six page "Parable "Parable Report" cited in Dr. 14 Berke's Behnk:e'sevaluation, evaluation,and andwas wasunaware unawareofoftheir theirexistence existence until until reviewing reviewing the the latter's latter's notes. notes. 15 15
16 Minute Entry at 10:37:15, 10:37:15, May 6, 2024. 2024. When Whenquestioned, questioned, Dr. Dr. Rapadas Rapadas revealed revealed that that fervent 16 17 17 religiosity religiosity is is aa rare rare theme to occur during a forensic evaluation, perhaps only occurring in about
18 18 20% of total interviews. interviews. Minute Minute Entry Entry at at 10:39:50, 10:39:50, May 6, 2024. Dr. Dr. Rapadas Rapadas concedes concedes that
19 Defendant's Defendant's condition condition could could have have worsened worsened over over the three three years that that he he has has been been incarcerated, incarcerated, 20 20 with the caveat that it is difficult difficult to determine the degree to which aa delusional delusional disorder disorder could 21 21 worsen in terms · worsen terms of of the the Defendant's Defendant's beliefs beliefs and how they and how they comport comport with with reality. Minute Entry reality. Minute Entry at at 22 10:41::10, 10,May May6,6,2024. 2024.ItItwas wasknown knownby byDr. Dr.Rapadas Rapadasthat thatDefendant Defendant had had strong strong religious religious beliefs beliefs 23 affected his that affected his behavior. behavior. Minute Entry at 10:43:20, May 6, 6, 2024. 2024. However, when questioned 24 Dr. Rapadas Rapadas agreed that the existence existence of of such such fervently fervently religious religious comments comments and and documents documents 25 26 would have potentially altered his his findings. findings. Minute Minute Entry at at l0:46: 10:46: 18, May 6, 6, 2024. 2024. Moreover, 26
27 Decision and Decision and Order Case No. CF0026-21, People v. CF0026-21, People v. Ornellas Ornellas Page 8 of 11 11 1 Dr. Rapadas admits admits that that Defendant's Defendant's beliefs contributed contributed to his rationale for beheading beheading the victim, 2 and that those those beliefs beliefs ("deep ("deep heritage heritage showings", showings", devil-like clothing and symbols, and the need 3 4 to behead the victim victim because they they were were aa demon demon who who threatened to to kill kill Defendant's Defendant's family) were 4 during the evident during first evaluation, the first evaluation, but but for for some some reason reason did did not weigh heavily heavily during during the the 5
6 competency analysis. competency analysis. Minute MinuteEntry Entryatat 10:55:37, 10:55:37, May 6, 2024. May 6,
7 Taking the results of both forensic examinations in in total, the Court finds that Defendant
8 currently not is currently not competent competent to against or to be to proceed against be sentenced. sentenced. Dr.. Behnke Ber ke s tstated a t ed t that ha
99 suffers from Defendant suffers from a delusional delusional disorder disorder and and has has a firmly firmly held set of of beliefs that do not
10 comport with reality. Second Forensic Evaluation at 13, February February 5, 5, 2024 2024 .. Dr. Dr. Rapadas Rapadas also 11 11 Defendant suffered concluded that Defendant suffered from aa delusional delusional disorder disorder but attributed it to drug-induced but attributed 12 12 of the first forensic evaluation. First psychosis at the time of First Forensic Evaluation at at 20, March 19, 13 13 2021. However, 2021. However, there there was was aa distinct distinct lack lack of of feverish feverish religiosity religiosity in Defendant's language language and 14 worldview ldview during dur ing the the first st forensic for ensic evaluation, eva lua tion, the the lack la ck of of which, which, by by Dr.. Rapadas's' own 15 15 16 16 admission, led admission, led to to his conclusions conclusions about about the the Defendant's Defendant's competency. Dr. Behnke competency. Dr. Behnke finds finds that that
17 17 religious convictions Defendant's religious convictions regarding regarding the the cosmic cosmic unfolding unfolding of of the the Second Second Coming of of
18 18 Christ ist "overwhelms "over whelms his his rational tiona l understanding under sta nding of of the the trial tr ia l process pr ocess when when he aapplies his pplies his
19 19 knowledge to knowledge to his own case". Second Second Forensic Forensic Evaluation Evaluation at 13, 13, February February 5,5,2024. of 2024. Because of
20 20 these potentially worsening these potentially worsening and and deeply held delusional delusional beliefs, beliefs, it is clear clear that Defendant is 21 incapable of understanding incapable understanding the the legal legal proceedings proceedings against against him. Therefore, Defendant him. Therefore, Defendant cannot cannot 22 meaningfully participate meaninghllly participate in in building his legal defense defense strategy. strategy. 23 hile it isis ppossible While os s ib t that ha DDefendant ef enda ccould ou bbe restored e r es t or t to competency o c omp through et enc y t hr ou 24 psychotherapy and medication, Defendant's Defendant's refusal refusal to to comply comply with with such such methods, as well as the methods, as 25
27 Decision Decision and and Order Case No. CF0026-21, People People v. Ornellas Page 9 ofll Page of 11 11 current pervasiveness current pervasivenessand andrigidity rigidityof of Defendant's Defendant's delusional delusionalbeliefs, beliefs,prevents competency. Id. preventscompetency. Id 2 Defendant fails all four prongs of the competency test for Defendant for the the following reasons: following reasons: 3
4 1) Defendant 1) Defendantdoesdoesnot notunderstand understand that that the the proceeding proceeding isis entirely entirelysecular secular in in nature nature and and 5 governed solely by Guam law and Guam Guam criminal procedure. Id. criminal procedure. at 14. Id at 14. Defendant isisunable 2) Defendant unable totoassist assist and and cooperate cooperate with with his his counsel counsel because because he he cannot cannot 6 consider possible defenses separate from his rigidly-held religious/theological consider possible defenses separate from his rigidly-held religious/theological beliefs. Id. beliefs. Id 7 Defendant is 3) Defendant is not not able able to to follow followthe theevidence evidence because because he he believes believes evidence evidence will include his his testimony testimony regarding regarding messages messageshe hehas hasreceived receivedfromfromGod God as oneof as one of God's God's 8 "elect" who "elect" who hashas "spiritual gifts". Id. "spiritualgifts". Id 9 Defendantisisnot 4) Defendant notable abletotoparticipate participateininhishisdefense defensebecause because he he views views the the trial trial process process as grounded grounded in inpreparation preparationfor forthe theSecond SecondComing Comingof Christ. Id. ofChrist. Id 10
11 11 Therefore, transfer Therefore, transfer to to Mental Mental Health Health Court Court is appropriate so that appropriate so that Defendant can work on Defendant can on 12 12 complying complying with with his his treatment with the treatment with the help helpof of GBHWC. GBHWC 13 13 \\ 14 15 15 \\\
16 16 \\\
17 17 \\ \\
18 18 \\ \\
19 19 \\ \\ 20 0 \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 \\ 24 \\ 25 26 m 26 \\
27 Decision Decision and and Order Order Case No. CF0026-21, CF0026-21, People People v. v. Ornellas Ornellas of 11 Page 10 of 11 1 1 CONCLUSION CONCLUSION AND AND ORDER 2 For For the above reasons, theCourt reasons, the Courtmakes makesthe thefollowing following findings of fact and conclusions conclusions of of 3 law: law: 4 • • Defendant Defendant is currently currently not competent competent to to stand stand trial trial and and possess possess neither neither the the mental mental 5
6 competency "(1) "(l)totounderstand understand the nature nature of the proceedings, (2) to to assist assist and and cooperate
7 with counsel, (3) to counsel, (3) to follow the the evidence, evidence, or (4) to to participate in his participate in his defense." defense." See 9
8 G.c.A. G.C.A. §§ 7.37(a)(1>-(4). 7.37(a)(l)-(4).
9 • • Defendant's Defendant's case will will be be transferred transferred to Mental Health Health Court. 10
11 ORDERED, this this _ _ _ day of Aus AUG 08 O82024 2024 2024. 12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO HONORABLE ALBERTO TOLENTINO Judge, Judge, Superior Court of Guam 16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
22 D
SERVICE vIA E-MAIL SERVICE VIA £-mul. 23 acknowledge Iadmowled1e that an electronic copy of of the the oriJinal original wlS~mailed was emailed to: to: A4 1 _AG 24 -inv Le
25 Dlmlych1k,B dGum 26
27 Decision Decision and and Order Order Case No. CF0026-21, CF0026-21, People v. People v. Ornellas Ornellas 11 of Page 11 of 11 11