People v. Pere

Opinion

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0483-12 8 v. 9 MARIANO TACLA PERE, DECISION AND ORDER 10

11 Defendant.

14 INTRODUCTION

15 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 4th day ofNovember, 16 2013, for hearing on the Defendant's Motion for Mistrial. Attorney David Lujan of Lujan 17 Aguigui & Perez LLP represented the Defendant, and Assistant Attorney General Matthew 18 Heibel represented the Government. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the 19

20 motion.

21 ANALYSIS 22 The basic allegation ofthe Defendant's motion is that the Government failed to disclose 23 police notes governed People v. Laxamana, 2001 Guam 26, prior to trial. The Defendant argues 24 that the Government's nondisclosure of Laxamana notes impaired his ability to investigate and 25

26 prepare cross-examination of the Government's witnesses to such an extent that he has suffered

27 substantial prejudice to his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and 28 that he has therefore been denied his right to a fair trial. Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0483-12- People v. Pere

Under People v. 1<1ores, 2009 Guam 22, 9, the granting of a mistrial is a decision within

2 the sound discretion of the trial court. Courts have long acknowledged that mistrial is an

3 extreme sanction, and have granted mistrials where there has existed "manifest necessity" for 4 doing so. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 505 (1973). In general, a mistrial is an 5 appropriate remedy for a discovery violation by the Government only when the violation has 6 resulted in prejudice to the Defendant's substantial rights. People v. Cruz, 70 F.3d 1090, 1091- 7

8 92 (9th Cir. 1995). For Laxamana violations in particular, the Superior Court has broad

9 discretion in rendering appropriate relief, and less drastic sanctions are favored for Laxamana 10 violations that do not substantially prejudice the Defendant's rights. See, e.g., People v. Naich, 11 2013 Guam 7,, 46 (Superior Court acted within its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss 12

13 for Laxamana violations that were unintentional and only minimally prejudicial).

14 At the outset, the Court notes that it sees no indication of any intentional or willful

15 misconduct or unethical behavior by the prosecution in this case. Contrary to the intimations of 16 defense counsel, this does not appear to the Court to be a case in which the prosecution has 17 maliciously shirked its discovery obligations in an attempt to seize a tactical advantage at trial. 18

19 The Court is guided by People v. Cruz, id., which is closely analogous to the case at bar.

20 In Cruz, id., the Government failed to produce a police report in discovery. The police report 21 came to light at trial and the Court granted a four-day continuance to allow the defense to 22 review and late-arriving evidence. The Defendant claimed on appeal that a mistrial should have 23 been granted. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument because the Defendant "ha[ d] not 24

25 articulated (a) how his nonreceipt of materials placed him at a 'severe disadvantage,' (b) how

26 the omission affected the presentation of his defense, (c) which of his 'substantial rights' were 27 prejudiced, nor (d) how those rights were prejudiced." !d. at 1092. 28

Page 2 of3 Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0483-12 People v. Pere

Like the Defendant in Cruz, id., the Defendant in the case at bar provides only the naked

2 allegation that his trial strategy would have been affected by the additional evidence. He does

3 not discuss the relevance of the Laxamana notes or, crucially, their materiality to the outcome 4 of this trial. The Court, examining the circumstances of this case, sees no way in which the 5 discovery would have afforded the Defendant an opportunity to adopt a different trial strategy 6 that would have significantly affected his chances of obtaining an acquittal. See Cruz, id. The 7

8 Defendant has failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice arising from any discovery violation.

9 Finding no substantial prejudice resulting from the discovery violation, the Court 10 accordingly cannot find any violation of the Constitutional rights afforded to the Defendant by 11 the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and cannot find that the Defendant's right to 12 a fair trial has been compromised. The Court finds no manifest necessity for mistrial, no 13

14 substantial prejudice to any substantial right of the Defendant, no implication of fundamental

15 fairness in denying the mistrial, and no interest of justice that would be served by granting the 16 mistrial. The Court therefore concludes, in the exercise of its discretion under People v. Flores, 17 2009 Guam 22 ~ 9, that a mistrial is not appropriate under the circumstances of this case. 18

19 CONCLUSION

20 For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and for 21 Mistrial is DENIED. 22

23 IT IS SO ORDERED this day 24

27 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam 28