People v. Pere

Opinion

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

6 PEOPLE OF GUAM 7 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF 0483-12 8 v.

9 MARIANO TACLA PERE, DECISION AND ORDER

10 Defendant. II

12 This ex parte matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on Defendant's 13 Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Hearing on the 20th day of December, 2013. 14 Attorney David Lujan represents Defendant and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Heibel

15 represents the People. This Court, having reviewed the pleadings and record, determines that a hearing is not necessary and denies the motion. 16 Defendant is charged with a total of eight counts of criminal sexual conduct. Trial 17 commenced on October 23, 2013, and the jury began its deliberations on December 3, 2013. 18 During the course of the jury's deliberations, the Court received a note from the Foreperson in 19 which the Foreperson expressed concern over the ability of a fellow juror to deliberate 20 impartially. The Foreperson suggested that her concern was shared by another juror. Defendant 21 moved this Court to grant a mistrial because of "the current jury deadlock and by actual 22 notification from the jury of one juror's inability to deliberate in a fair and impartial manner." 23 On December 16, 2013, this Court denied Defendant's motion. Defendant now moves for reconsideration and a hearing pursuant to People of Guam v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19, ~ 40, 1 24

27 1 "A court may depart from the law ofthe case where: 1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; 2) an intervening 28 change in the law has occurred; 3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; 4) other changed circumstances Decision and Order CF 0483-12 - People v. Pere

because this Court's previous "Decision and Order was clearly erroneous and, if not reconsidered, manifest injustice will occur." 2 Defendant's motion is duplicative, without merit, and devoid of reason for this Court to 3 entertain further argument. Defendant presented his arguments at length and on the record both 4 at the hearing conducted by this Court and in the Motion for Mistrial Based on Juror 5 Misconduct filed on December 13, 2013. Defendant offers no basis to conclude that this Court's 6 Decision and Order is clearly erroneous or would otherwise result in manifest injustice. Instead, 7 Defendant speculates as to a tainted jury deliberation and otherwise fails to articulate, by 8 reference to the record, how this Court's finding was clearly erroneous, i.e., "even though some

9 evidence supports [the finding], the entire record produces the definite and firm conviction that

10 [this Court] committed a mistake." People of Guam v. Farata, 2007 Guam 8, ~ 14. Moreover, Defendant continues to dispute the manner in which this Court conducted the hearing and 11 rehashes his contention that the Court should have inquired more deeply into the jury's 12 deliberative process. Defendant likewise elects to parse through the case law cited by the Court l3 without offering countervailing research. Therefore, this Court finds no cause to reconsider its 14 Decision and Order or to hold another hearing and, accordingly, denies Defendant's motion. 15

16 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December 23,2013. 17

19 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 20 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 21

27 exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result. Failure to apply the doctrine of the law of the case absent 28 one of the requisite conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion."

Page 2 of2