4,1 _.ED :§u=5m@R CGURT BAH 1 2819 JUN 27 PH l=5J 2 CLERK atacouar 3 Q.,- To 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0737-18 6 ) vs. ) DECISION & ORDER 7 ) (Motion for Acquittal) 8 JOSHUA BRANDON PEREZ, ) ) 9 Defendant. ) ) 10
INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on May 28, 2019, on Defendant 12 Joshua Brandon Perez's ("Perez") Motion for Acquittal following his conviction at trial. Perez 13 was present and represented by' Attorney Stephen P. Hattori. Assistant Attorney General 14 Matthew Phelps represented the People of Guam ("People"). Having considered the arguments
15 of the parties, the record and the law relevant to the detennination of the motion, the Court now issues this Decision and Order DENYING Perez's motion. 16 FACTUAL AND PRQCEDURAL BACKGROUND 17 * Defendant was indicted on December 18, 2018, on one count of POSSESSION OF A 18 SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER (As a First
19 Degree Felony) and one count of POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE 11 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a Third Degree Felony). Indictment (Dec. 18, 2018). Both charges were 20 accompanied by a Notice: Commission of a Felony While on Felony Release. Id. 21 On February 19, 2019, a jury of twelve returned a guilty verdict for the charge of 22 POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE 11 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a Third Degree
23 Felony). Verdict Form Two (Feb. 19, 2019).1 On February 28, 2019, Perez filed a Motion for Acquittal, arguing that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The 24
25 1 Perez was found not guilty of the first charge relating to intent to distribute. 26 People v.Perez; CF0737~18 Decision & Order on Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal P e f4
ORIGINAL 1 People filed an Opposition on March 11, 2019. A Motion Hearing was held on May 28, 2019,
2 and the Court thereafter took this matter under advisement. LAW AND DISCUSSION 3 a. Legal standard for judgment of acquittal. 4 Under Guam law, the Court "shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or 5 more offenses charged in the indictment if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction
6 of such offense or offenses." 8 G.C.A. § 100.10. The Court will review the evidence presented against the defendant in a light most favorable to the government to determine whether any 7 rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 8 doubt. People v. Qui rata, 1999 Guam 6 iI 9. The Court "is concerned with the existence or 9 nonexistence of evidence, not its weight." People v. Song, 2012 Guam 21 *][29. Accordingly, the 10 Court "should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal when the evidence merely raises a
11 suspicion that the accused is guilty. However, if there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the case was 12 properly submitted to the jury." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 13 b. Circumstantial evidence existed to corroborate the results of the presumptive field test. 14 The Guam Supreme Court has stated that a field test alone is insufficient to prove
15 beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant possessed a controlled substance. "We agree with Mateo that if these field tests were the only evidence that the People relied upon to prove that he 16 possessed a controlled substance, this would not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But 17 that is not the case. There was considerable circumstantial evidence of Mateo's guilt, and the 18 presumptively positive field tests-though not conclusive-were certainly corroborative of
19 Mateo's possession of a controlled substance." People v. Mateo, 2017 Guam 22 *][ 37. In the present case, as in Mateo, the methamphetalnines were tested by a field test but 20 not by a laboratory test. However, the search of Perez's vehicle revealed considerable 21 circumstantial evidence of drug possession. The officers conducting the search found four heat- 22 modified glass pipes, one plastic pipe, a digital scale, plastic baggies, and a book entitled 23 "Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture: Including Recipes for MDA, Ecstasy, and Other
24 Psychedelic Amphetamines." All of these items were presented to the jury and the officers who conducted the search testified to having found these items in Perez's vehicle. Because the jury 25
26 People v. Perez; CF0737-18 Decision & Order on Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Page z of 4 IIIII
1 was presented with substantial corroborating evidence to support Perez's possession of a
2 controlled substance, the Court finds that Perez's argument fails. c. Testimonv was presented to demonstrate that methamphetamine is an amphetamine- 3 based substance. 4 Perez next argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that methamphetamine is 5 a Schedule H Controlled Substance under Guam law. Mot. for Acquittal at 4 (Feb. 28, 2019).
6 The Indictment states that Perez "did commit the offense of Possession of a Schedule ll Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony), in that he did unlawfully and knowingly 7 possess a Schedule II controlled substance, that is, an amphetamine-based substance, in 8 violation of 9 GCA §§ 67.40l.2(a) and (b)(l). Perez argues that no evidence was presented to 9 explain the relationship between methamphetamines and amphetamines. Mot. for Acquittal at 3. 10 The People argue that reasonable inferences could be drawn based on the names of the
11 substances - that methamphetamine is an amphetamine-based substance (bolded for emphasis). Based on persuasive case law, the Court disagrees with the People's contention that 12 the jury can make such an inference without additional evidence. 13 In People v. Davis, 57 Cal.4th 353, 356 (Cal. 2013), the defendant was charged with 14 possession of 3, 4-MDMA, a substance not specifically listed as a controlled substance. The
15 jury was only given the scientific name of MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) and was not. presented with expert testimony as to whether MDMA met the definition of a controlled 16 substance or analog. Id. at 360. The Supreme Court of California overturned Davis's conviction, 17 holding that there was insufficient evidence that MDMA was a controlled substance. The court 18 also rejected the argument that the jury could rely on common knowledge or common sense that
19 MDMA contained methamphetamine because it was included in the scientific name. Id. "Because it is not specifically listed in any schedule, evidence of MDMA's chemical name, 20 standing alone, is insufficient to prove that it contains a controlled substance or meets the 21 definition of an analog." Id. at 361. However, the Davis court found that a "jury may find that 22 MDMA is a controlled substance or analog based on evidence of MDMA's chemical 23 composition or its effects on the user." Id. at 359 (emphasis in original).
24 In the present case, the Court finds that the jury did not rely solely on common knowledge or common sense to determine that methamphetamine is an amphetamine-based 25
26 People v. Perez; CF0737-18 Decision & Order on Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Page 3 of 4
Ar 1 substance, but also relied on the book found in Perez's car, which explains the relationship
2 between the two substances. The book, which the People admitted into evidence, is titled "Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture: Including Recipes for MDA, Ecstasy, and other 3 Psychedelic Amphetamines." The title of this book suggests that methamphetamines (as well as 4 MDA and ecstasy) are included within the group of drugs called "psychedelic amphetamines." 5 This book provided evidence from Which the jury could infer that methamphetamines were a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
4,1 _.ED :§u=5m@R CGURT BAH 1 2819 JUN 27 PH l=5J 2 CLERK atacouar 3 Q.,- To 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0737-18 6 ) vs. ) DECISION & ORDER 7 ) (Motion for Acquittal) 8 JOSHUA BRANDON PEREZ, ) ) 9 Defendant. ) ) 10
INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on May 28, 2019, on Defendant 12 Joshua Brandon Perez's ("Perez") Motion for Acquittal following his conviction at trial. Perez 13 was present and represented by' Attorney Stephen P. Hattori. Assistant Attorney General 14 Matthew Phelps represented the People of Guam ("People"). Having considered the arguments
15 of the parties, the record and the law relevant to the detennination of the motion, the Court now issues this Decision and Order DENYING Perez's motion. 16 FACTUAL AND PRQCEDURAL BACKGROUND 17 * Defendant was indicted on December 18, 2018, on one count of POSSESSION OF A 18 SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER (As a First
19 Degree Felony) and one count of POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE 11 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a Third Degree Felony). Indictment (Dec. 18, 2018). Both charges were 20 accompanied by a Notice: Commission of a Felony While on Felony Release. Id. 21 On February 19, 2019, a jury of twelve returned a guilty verdict for the charge of 22 POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE 11 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a Third Degree
23 Felony). Verdict Form Two (Feb. 19, 2019).1 On February 28, 2019, Perez filed a Motion for Acquittal, arguing that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The 24
25 1 Perez was found not guilty of the first charge relating to intent to distribute. 26 People v.Perez; CF0737~18 Decision & Order on Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal P e f4
ORIGINAL 1 People filed an Opposition on March 11, 2019. A Motion Hearing was held on May 28, 2019,
2 and the Court thereafter took this matter under advisement. LAW AND DISCUSSION 3 a. Legal standard for judgment of acquittal. 4 Under Guam law, the Court "shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or 5 more offenses charged in the indictment if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction
6 of such offense or offenses." 8 G.C.A. § 100.10. The Court will review the evidence presented against the defendant in a light most favorable to the government to determine whether any 7 rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 8 doubt. People v. Qui rata, 1999 Guam 6 iI 9. The Court "is concerned with the existence or 9 nonexistence of evidence, not its weight." People v. Song, 2012 Guam 21 *][29. Accordingly, the 10 Court "should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal when the evidence merely raises a
11 suspicion that the accused is guilty. However, if there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the case was 12 properly submitted to the jury." Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 13 b. Circumstantial evidence existed to corroborate the results of the presumptive field test. 14 The Guam Supreme Court has stated that a field test alone is insufficient to prove
15 beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant possessed a controlled substance. "We agree with Mateo that if these field tests were the only evidence that the People relied upon to prove that he 16 possessed a controlled substance, this would not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But 17 that is not the case. There was considerable circumstantial evidence of Mateo's guilt, and the 18 presumptively positive field tests-though not conclusive-were certainly corroborative of
19 Mateo's possession of a controlled substance." People v. Mateo, 2017 Guam 22 *][ 37. In the present case, as in Mateo, the methamphetalnines were tested by a field test but 20 not by a laboratory test. However, the search of Perez's vehicle revealed considerable 21 circumstantial evidence of drug possession. The officers conducting the search found four heat- 22 modified glass pipes, one plastic pipe, a digital scale, plastic baggies, and a book entitled 23 "Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture: Including Recipes for MDA, Ecstasy, and Other
24 Psychedelic Amphetamines." All of these items were presented to the jury and the officers who conducted the search testified to having found these items in Perez's vehicle. Because the jury 25
26 People v. Perez; CF0737-18 Decision & Order on Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Page z of 4 IIIII
1 was presented with substantial corroborating evidence to support Perez's possession of a
2 controlled substance, the Court finds that Perez's argument fails. c. Testimonv was presented to demonstrate that methamphetamine is an amphetamine- 3 based substance. 4 Perez next argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that methamphetamine is 5 a Schedule H Controlled Substance under Guam law. Mot. for Acquittal at 4 (Feb. 28, 2019).
6 The Indictment states that Perez "did commit the offense of Possession of a Schedule ll Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony), in that he did unlawfully and knowingly 7 possess a Schedule II controlled substance, that is, an amphetamine-based substance, in 8 violation of 9 GCA §§ 67.40l.2(a) and (b)(l). Perez argues that no evidence was presented to 9 explain the relationship between methamphetamines and amphetamines. Mot. for Acquittal at 3. 10 The People argue that reasonable inferences could be drawn based on the names of the
11 substances - that methamphetamine is an amphetamine-based substance (bolded for emphasis). Based on persuasive case law, the Court disagrees with the People's contention that 12 the jury can make such an inference without additional evidence. 13 In People v. Davis, 57 Cal.4th 353, 356 (Cal. 2013), the defendant was charged with 14 possession of 3, 4-MDMA, a substance not specifically listed as a controlled substance. The
15 jury was only given the scientific name of MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) and was not. presented with expert testimony as to whether MDMA met the definition of a controlled 16 substance or analog. Id. at 360. The Supreme Court of California overturned Davis's conviction, 17 holding that there was insufficient evidence that MDMA was a controlled substance. The court 18 also rejected the argument that the jury could rely on common knowledge or common sense that
19 MDMA contained methamphetamine because it was included in the scientific name. Id. "Because it is not specifically listed in any schedule, evidence of MDMA's chemical name, 20 standing alone, is insufficient to prove that it contains a controlled substance or meets the 21 definition of an analog." Id. at 361. However, the Davis court found that a "jury may find that 22 MDMA is a controlled substance or analog based on evidence of MDMA's chemical 23 composition or its effects on the user." Id. at 359 (emphasis in original).
24 In the present case, the Court finds that the jury did not rely solely on common knowledge or common sense to determine that methamphetamine is an amphetamine-based 25
26 People v. Perez; CF0737-18 Decision & Order on Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Page 3 of 4
Ar 1 substance, but also relied on the book found in Perez's car, which explains the relationship
2 between the two substances. The book, which the People admitted into evidence, is titled "Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture: Including Recipes for MDA, Ecstasy, and other 3 Psychedelic Amphetamines." The title of this book suggests that methamphetamines (as well as 4 MDA and ecstasy) are included within the group of drugs called "psychedelic amphetamines." 5 This book provided evidence from Which the jury could infer that methamphetamines were a
6 derivative of amphetamines, and therefore supports an affirmation of the jury's verdict under Davis. The Court is not tasked with weighing the strength of the evidence presented, but is only 7 concerned with the existence of evidence to support the People's argument that 8 methamphetamine is an amphetamine-based substance. Song, 2012 Guam 21 iI 29, Davis, 57 9 Cal.4th 353, 361. The Court finds that the book found in Perez's car constitutes such evidence. 10 While the Court agrees with Perez's contention that the jury could not have found him
11 guilty without any evidence that methamphetamine is an amphetamine-based substance. However, the Court finds that such evidence was properly presented to the jury. Therefore, 12 Perez's argument fails. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Based upon the evidence that was introduced during the People's Case in Chief and 15 interpreting this evidence in the light most favorable to the People and drawing every
16 reasonable inference from the evidence in favor of the People, a rational trier of fact could have found that Perez was guilty of POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II -CONTROLLED 17 SUBSTANCE (As a Third Degree Felony). Consequently, Perez's Motion for Judgment of 18 Acquittal is DENIED. 19
20 SO ORDERED 6 Z7 /i I acknowledge that a copy of the 0\'lgul hereto was pal¢ld In it
¢ 22 Gull! DOI M:
23 Ma, P050 r The Honorable Anita A. §uko1a DltQ§ slime: 9:'00F 24 Judge, Superior Court of Guam #v~_bMl>l Crwv Deputy Ci zai8i" Court of Guam 25
26 People v. Perez; CF0737-18 Decision 8¢ Order on Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Page 4 of 4