1 "'C:IJoER ' ,.,!..IOH COURT Ur GUAN 2 2018 FEB -2 pj~ 2: 05 3 CLERK OF COURT 4 :;;,!: : .._------LZ__ n/ --c~-~·~~
10 PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0445-16 11
12 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 13 (Re: Defendant's Motion To Exclude WILLIAM MENO PEREZ, 14 DOB: 05-15-1980 Healing Hearts Reports and Forensic Interview) 16
17 INTRODUCTION 18 This matter came before the honorable Anita A. Sukola on July 14, 2017 on William 19 Meno Perez's ("Defendant") Motion for Exclusion of Healing Hearts Reports and Forensic 20 Interview. Attorney William Pole appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Assistant Attorney 21 General Peter J. Santos appeared on behalf of the People of Guam ("People"). Upon review 22 of the written and oral arguments, and legal authorities presented by the Parties, and for the 23 reasons set out herein, the Court issues this decision and order DENYING the Defendant's 24 Motion. 25 Ill 26 27 Ill
Ill ORIGINAl 28
CF0445-16, People of Guam v. Perez Page 1 of5 Decision and Order Re: Defs Mot. to Admit Evidence of Habit. 2 On July 28, 2016, a Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury issued an Indictment 3 charging the Defendant with two counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st 4 Degree Felony) and two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st 5 Degree Felony). Indictment 1-2 (July 28, 2016). The Defendant was arraigned on August 3, 6 2016 in the Superior Court of Guam where he pleaded not guilty and asserted his right to a 7 speedy trial. Superior Court of Guam Minute Entry Log No. 13059 (Aug. 3, 2016). 8 On July 14, 2017, Defendant filed his Motion for Exclusion of Healing Hearts 9 Reports and Forensic Interview. Def's Mot. To Exclude Healing Hearts Report (July 14, 10 2017). Defendant argues that the Healing Hearts examination and forensic interview were 11 for the primary purpose of eliciting information to benefit the Prosecution, and therefore 12 inadmissible hearsay not subject to the medical treatment exception. ld. On July 19, 2017, 13 the People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion.
15 The Defendant moves the Court to issue an order excluding an examination and an 16 interview conducted by Healing Hearts Crisis Center. Def.'s Mot. To Exclude 1 (Jul. 14, 17 20 17). The Defendant argues that the examination report and interview are hearsay not 18 within any exception and that the Healing Hearts personnel are not qualified to be experts
19 under Guam Rule of Evidence 702. 20 I. Guam Rule of Evidence 702: Expert Witnesses
21 Defendant argues that testimony from Healing Hearts employees is inadmissible on 22 the basis that it is being offered as expert testimony despite the lack of credentials of these 23 employees. 24 Guam Rule of Evidence 702 provides for testimony by expert witnesses and reads as 25 follows: 26 If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an 27 expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in 28 the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient
CF0445-16, People of Guam v. Perez Page 2 ofS Decision and Order Re: Defs Mot. to Admit Evidence of Habit. 1 facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the 2 case. Guam R. Evid. 702. 3 Guam Rule of Evidence 702 is copied directly from the Federal rule. The United States 4 Supreme Court, in determining a trial court's role determining the admissibility of expert 5 testimony, has ruled that the court is to be a gate keeper for whether expert scientific 6 testimony is admitted. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
7 In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. V. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Court extended Dauber
8 beyond scientific testimony, to include expert testimony involving technical and other specialized knowledge as well. 9 The Supreme Court of Guam has held that "[A] witness may be qualified based on 10 their knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or upon a combination of any of the 11 five factors." Ueda v. Bank of Guam, 2005 Guam 23
15 Defendant has correctly pointed out that a witness cannot testify to matters outside his or her expertise. However, Defendant has not provided the Court with any information 16 as to who the experts are, what their credentials are, or what they will be testifying about. 17 The issue of whether Healing Hearts personnel qualify as experts under Guam Rule 18 of Evidence 702 is not a question of their place of employment, but rather individual 19 qualifications. The fact that a potential witness is employed at a particular workplace is not 20 enough to qualify or disqualify that potential witness as an expert. Each individual offered 21 must be certified based on his or her individual qualifications. Defendant's motion makes no
22 reference to the qualifications of any of the potential witnesses. Defendant provides the
23 Court with relevant law and a legal conclusion, but no facts or arguments. Defendant has also failed to show that the testimony from Healing Hearts personnel will be expert 24 testimony. The Court therefore cannot exclude the testimony of Healing Hearts personnel 25 based upon Defendant's present motion. 26 27 III
CF0445-16, People of Guam v. Perez Page 3 of5 Decision and Order Re: Def' s Mot. to Admit Evidence of Habit. 1 II. Guam Rule of Evidence 803(4): Statements for Purpose of Medical Treatment 2 3 Defendant argues that the primary purpose of the Healing Hearts records are not medical, and therefore should not be admitted as an exception to the rule prohibiting 4 hearsay. 5 Guam Rule of Evidence 803(4), which uses language tracking the Federal Rule, 6 creates a hearsay exception for the following statements: 7 "Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing 8 medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or 9 general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably
10 pertinent to diagnosis or treatment." Guam R. Evid. 803(4). This rule is based on the understanding that statements made for the purpose of medical 11 treatment are more likely to be true, and therefore are more trustworthy than other hearsay 12 statements. "The Rule 803(4) exception to the hearsay rule is founded on a theory of 13 reliability that emanates from the patient's own selfish motive- her understanding 'that the 14 effectiveness of the treatment received will depend upon the accuracy of the information 15 provided to the physician."' United States v. Joe, 8 F.3d 1488, 1493-94 (lOth Cir. 1993)) 16 (quoting 2 McCormick on Evidence§ 277, at 246-47 (John W. Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992)).
17 The Defendant argues that the purpose of Healing Hearts is not medical, but to build
18 a case for the prosecution. Def' s Mot. at 7. Defendant emphasizes that the examination was
19 done after the Defendant had already been arrested and detained, and that the primary
20 benefit of the examination was for the Government, and not the victim. Id. at 7.
21 In People v. Camacho, 2016 Guam 37 (2016), the Supreme Court of Guam ruled that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 "'C:IJoER ' ,.,!..IOH COURT Ur GUAN 2 2018 FEB -2 pj~ 2: 05 3 CLERK OF COURT 4 :;;,!: : .._------LZ__ n/ --c~-~·~~
10 PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0445-16 11
12 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 13 (Re: Defendant's Motion To Exclude WILLIAM MENO PEREZ, 14 DOB: 05-15-1980 Healing Hearts Reports and Forensic Interview) 16
17 INTRODUCTION 18 This matter came before the honorable Anita A. Sukola on July 14, 2017 on William 19 Meno Perez's ("Defendant") Motion for Exclusion of Healing Hearts Reports and Forensic 20 Interview. Attorney William Pole appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Assistant Attorney 21 General Peter J. Santos appeared on behalf of the People of Guam ("People"). Upon review 22 of the written and oral arguments, and legal authorities presented by the Parties, and for the 23 reasons set out herein, the Court issues this decision and order DENYING the Defendant's 24 Motion. 25 Ill 26 27 Ill
Ill ORIGINAl 28
CF0445-16, People of Guam v. Perez Page 1 of5 Decision and Order Re: Defs Mot. to Admit Evidence of Habit. 2 On July 28, 2016, a Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury issued an Indictment 3 charging the Defendant with two counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st 4 Degree Felony) and two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st 5 Degree Felony). Indictment 1-2 (July 28, 2016). The Defendant was arraigned on August 3, 6 2016 in the Superior Court of Guam where he pleaded not guilty and asserted his right to a 7 speedy trial. Superior Court of Guam Minute Entry Log No. 13059 (Aug. 3, 2016). 8 On July 14, 2017, Defendant filed his Motion for Exclusion of Healing Hearts 9 Reports and Forensic Interview. Def's Mot. To Exclude Healing Hearts Report (July 14, 10 2017). Defendant argues that the Healing Hearts examination and forensic interview were 11 for the primary purpose of eliciting information to benefit the Prosecution, and therefore 12 inadmissible hearsay not subject to the medical treatment exception. ld. On July 19, 2017, 13 the People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion.
15 The Defendant moves the Court to issue an order excluding an examination and an 16 interview conducted by Healing Hearts Crisis Center. Def.'s Mot. To Exclude 1 (Jul. 14, 17 20 17). The Defendant argues that the examination report and interview are hearsay not 18 within any exception and that the Healing Hearts personnel are not qualified to be experts
19 under Guam Rule of Evidence 702. 20 I. Guam Rule of Evidence 702: Expert Witnesses
21 Defendant argues that testimony from Healing Hearts employees is inadmissible on 22 the basis that it is being offered as expert testimony despite the lack of credentials of these 23 employees. 24 Guam Rule of Evidence 702 provides for testimony by expert witnesses and reads as 25 follows: 26 If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an 27 expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in 28 the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient
CF0445-16, People of Guam v. Perez Page 2 ofS Decision and Order Re: Defs Mot. to Admit Evidence of Habit. 1 facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the 2 case. Guam R. Evid. 702. 3 Guam Rule of Evidence 702 is copied directly from the Federal rule. The United States 4 Supreme Court, in determining a trial court's role determining the admissibility of expert 5 testimony, has ruled that the court is to be a gate keeper for whether expert scientific 6 testimony is admitted. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
7 In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. V. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Court extended Dauber
8 beyond scientific testimony, to include expert testimony involving technical and other specialized knowledge as well. 9 The Supreme Court of Guam has held that "[A] witness may be qualified based on 10 their knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or upon a combination of any of the 11 five factors." Ueda v. Bank of Guam, 2005 Guam 23
15 Defendant has correctly pointed out that a witness cannot testify to matters outside his or her expertise. However, Defendant has not provided the Court with any information 16 as to who the experts are, what their credentials are, or what they will be testifying about. 17 The issue of whether Healing Hearts personnel qualify as experts under Guam Rule 18 of Evidence 702 is not a question of their place of employment, but rather individual 19 qualifications. The fact that a potential witness is employed at a particular workplace is not 20 enough to qualify or disqualify that potential witness as an expert. Each individual offered 21 must be certified based on his or her individual qualifications. Defendant's motion makes no
22 reference to the qualifications of any of the potential witnesses. Defendant provides the
23 Court with relevant law and a legal conclusion, but no facts or arguments. Defendant has also failed to show that the testimony from Healing Hearts personnel will be expert 24 testimony. The Court therefore cannot exclude the testimony of Healing Hearts personnel 25 based upon Defendant's present motion. 26 27 III
CF0445-16, People of Guam v. Perez Page 3 of5 Decision and Order Re: Def' s Mot. to Admit Evidence of Habit. 1 II. Guam Rule of Evidence 803(4): Statements for Purpose of Medical Treatment 2 3 Defendant argues that the primary purpose of the Healing Hearts records are not medical, and therefore should not be admitted as an exception to the rule prohibiting 4 hearsay. 5 Guam Rule of Evidence 803(4), which uses language tracking the Federal Rule, 6 creates a hearsay exception for the following statements: 7 "Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing 8 medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or 9 general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably
10 pertinent to diagnosis or treatment." Guam R. Evid. 803(4). This rule is based on the understanding that statements made for the purpose of medical 11 treatment are more likely to be true, and therefore are more trustworthy than other hearsay 12 statements. "The Rule 803(4) exception to the hearsay rule is founded on a theory of 13 reliability that emanates from the patient's own selfish motive- her understanding 'that the 14 effectiveness of the treatment received will depend upon the accuracy of the information 15 provided to the physician."' United States v. Joe, 8 F.3d 1488, 1493-94 (lOth Cir. 1993)) 16 (quoting 2 McCormick on Evidence§ 277, at 246-47 (John W. Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992)).
17 The Defendant argues that the purpose of Healing Hearts is not medical, but to build
18 a case for the prosecution. Def' s Mot. at 7. Defendant emphasizes that the examination was
19 done after the Defendant had already been arrested and detained, and that the primary
20 benefit of the examination was for the Government, and not the victim. Id. at 7.
21 In People v. Camacho, 2016 Guam 37 (2016), the Supreme Court of Guam ruled that
22 statements made to Healing Hearts personnel were admissible under 803(4), despite the fact
23 that the statements were made to a social worker and not a medical professional. The Court
24 in Camacho relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in People v. Ignacio, 10 F.3d 608, 613
25 (9th Cir. 1993), which held that statements made for the purpose of treating either physical
26 or psychological needs can be properly admitted under 803(4).
CF0445-16, People of Guam v. Perez Page 4 ofS Decision and Order Re: Def' s Mot. to Admit Evidence of Habit. 1 The facts in Camacho were very similar to the facts of the current case. The victim
2 in that case was taken to Healing Hearts, where an intake interview was conducted. The
3 interview was followed by a physical examination. The Supreme Court held that statements
4 made by the victim to Healing Hearts personnel were admissible under GRE 803(4) in the
5 form of the Healing Hearts report as well as in-court testimony of the Healing Hearts
6 employee. Defendant has failed to address the Supreme Court's holding in Camacho, and
7 the Court does not view the facts currently presented as distinguishable from those in
8 Camacho. For this reason, the Court cannot grant Defendant's motion to exclude the
9 Healing Hearts reports or testimony from Healing Hearts personnel.
11 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the forgoing reasons, the Court
12 DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Healing Hearts Reports and Forensic
13 Interview.
15 FEB 0 2 ?018 SO ORDERED this _ _ _ _ _ _ __
18 The Honorable Anita A. Sukola Judge, Superior Court of Guam 19
25 26 27
CF0445-16, People of Guam v. Perez Page 5 of5 Decision and Order Re: Def' s Mot. to Admit Evidence of Habit.