Fl L E D SUPERIOR COURT OFGUAM l
2 2022 FEB 25 PH 2: IN 3 CLERKOFCOURT 4 by.-_ 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0523-21 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER
QUINTIN PAUL BRUCE QUINTANILLA aka Qu'mtin Paul B. Quintanilla aka Quintin Paul Quintanilla aka Quintin Bruce 13 Quintanilla, 14 Defendant. 15
16 INTRODUCTION
17 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on December 9, 2021, for
18 hearing on Defendant QUINTIN PAUL BRUCE QUINTANILLA aka Quintin Paul B.
19 Quintanilla aka Quintin Paul Quintanilla aka Quintin Bruce Quintanilla's ("Defendant")
20 Motion to Sever Charges for Purposes of Trial. Present remotely via Zoom were Assistant
21 Attorney General Richelle Y. Canto on behalf of the People of Guam ("the Government") and
22 Defendant with counsel, Assistant Alternate Public Defender Peter J. Santos. Having reviewed
23 the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following
24 Decision and Order.
25 BACKGROUND
26 On October 19, 2021, Defendant was indicted with the following charges: (1) First
27 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), (2) Advanced Stalking (As a
28 Second Degree Felony), (3) Aggravated Assault (As a Third Degree Felony), and (4)
People v. Quintilla Case No. CF0523-2 I Decision and Order
Page 1 off l Strangulation (As a Third Degree Felony). (Indictment, Oct. 19, 2021). On November 9, 2021,
2 Defendant tiled a Motion to Sever Charges for Purposes of Trial ("Motion to Sever").
3 Defendant moves the Court to sever the First Charge of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct
4 (As a First Degree Felony) from the remaining charges in the Indictment. See generally, Mot.
5 Sever, Nov. 9, 2021. On November 23, 2021, the Government filed its Opposition, and on
6 December 1, 2021, Defendant tiled his Reply.
7 On December 9, 2021, the Court heard brief arguments from the parties and
8 subsequently placed the matter under advisement.
9 DISCUSSION
10 Under Guam law, two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment "if the
offenses charged are of the same or similar character or based on the same act or transaction or
12 on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common
13 scheme or plan." 8 G.C.A. § 55.35.1 Severance may be appropriate, however:
14 If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a jointer of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such jointer for 15 trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a 16 severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. 17 8 G.C.A. § 6535.2 18 To determine whether offenses are properly joined, courts traditionally consider 19 "whether the charges are laid under the same statute, whether they involve similar victims, 20
21 1 Section 55.35 is substantially the same as Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides: 22 (a) Joiner of Offenses. The indictment or information may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged - whether felonies or misdemeanors or both - are 23 of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan. 24 Fed. R. Crum. P. 8. 25 2 Section 65.35 is substantially similar to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides: 26 If the jointer of offenses or defendants in an indictment, an information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of 27 counts, sever the defendants' trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires. 28 Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a).
People v. Quintanilla Case No. CF0523-21 Decision and Order
Page 2 of 4 1 locations, or modes of operation, and the time frame in which the charged conduct occurred."
2 United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 973 (let Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "the
3 validity of the jointer is determined solely by the allegations in the indictment." United States
4 v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 572 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272 (9th
5 Cir. 1990)). "[T]he primary purpose of Rule 8(a) jointer is to ensure that a given transaction
6 need only be proved once.... Where there is substantial overlap in evidence between two
7 offenses, jointer eliminates the need to prove substantially the same evidence twice over, thus
8 realizing precisely the kind of economy envisaged by Rule 8(a)." Howerton v. United States,
9 964 A.2d 1282, 1292 (D.C. 2009) (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted),
10 see also Terry, 911 F.2d at 276 ("When ... joined offenses are not connected and are not
provable by the same evidence, jointer is improper."). Rule 8(a) is "construed broadly in favor
12 of initial jointer." United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 385 (nth Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
13 See also United States v. Boulanger, 444 F.3d 76, 87 (1st Cir. 2006) (construing Rule 8(a)
14 generously in favor ofjoinder) .
15 Defendant argues that the First Charge should be severed from the remaining charges for
16 trial because the "evidence likely would confuse and inflame the jury as the indictment simply
17 lumps together charges which are not factually related, nor are they related to a single instance
18 of alleged conduct." (Mot. Sever at 3). The Government opposes, arguing that "Defendant's
19 acts of family violence and the sexual assaults evince a pattern of conduct that indicates a
20 common scheme or plan by the Defendant" and that "the victim's testimony on the physical
21 abuse she suffered is inexplicably intertwined with the sexual assaults." (Opp'n at 4, Nov. 23,
22 2021).
23 The Court acknowledges that all charges involve the same alleged victim, N.M.M.
24 (DOB: 09/03/1989). However, the First Charge of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a
25 First Degree Felony) alleges conduct occurring between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012,
26 while the remaining charges allege conduct occurring roughly ten (10) years later between
27 December 1, 2020 and September 20, 2021. (Indictment, Oct. 19, 2021). Although there may
28 be evidence that overlaps between the charges by virtue of them being against the same alleged
People v. Quintilla Case No. CF0523-2 l Decision and Order
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fl L E D SUPERIOR COURT OFGUAM l
2 2022 FEB 25 PH 2: IN 3 CLERKOFCOURT 4 by.-_ 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0523-21 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER
QUINTIN PAUL BRUCE QUINTANILLA aka Qu'mtin Paul B. Quintanilla aka Quintin Paul Quintanilla aka Quintin Bruce 13 Quintanilla, 14 Defendant. 15
16 INTRODUCTION
17 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on December 9, 2021, for
18 hearing on Defendant QUINTIN PAUL BRUCE QUINTANILLA aka Quintin Paul B.
19 Quintanilla aka Quintin Paul Quintanilla aka Quintin Bruce Quintanilla's ("Defendant")
20 Motion to Sever Charges for Purposes of Trial. Present remotely via Zoom were Assistant
21 Attorney General Richelle Y. Canto on behalf of the People of Guam ("the Government") and
22 Defendant with counsel, Assistant Alternate Public Defender Peter J. Santos. Having reviewed
23 the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following
24 Decision and Order.
25 BACKGROUND
26 On October 19, 2021, Defendant was indicted with the following charges: (1) First
27 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony), (2) Advanced Stalking (As a
28 Second Degree Felony), (3) Aggravated Assault (As a Third Degree Felony), and (4)
People v. Quintilla Case No. CF0523-2 I Decision and Order
Page 1 off l Strangulation (As a Third Degree Felony). (Indictment, Oct. 19, 2021). On November 9, 2021,
2 Defendant tiled a Motion to Sever Charges for Purposes of Trial ("Motion to Sever").
3 Defendant moves the Court to sever the First Charge of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct
4 (As a First Degree Felony) from the remaining charges in the Indictment. See generally, Mot.
5 Sever, Nov. 9, 2021. On November 23, 2021, the Government filed its Opposition, and on
6 December 1, 2021, Defendant tiled his Reply.
7 On December 9, 2021, the Court heard brief arguments from the parties and
8 subsequently placed the matter under advisement.
9 DISCUSSION
10 Under Guam law, two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment "if the
offenses charged are of the same or similar character or based on the same act or transaction or
12 on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common
13 scheme or plan." 8 G.C.A. § 55.35.1 Severance may be appropriate, however:
14 If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a jointer of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such jointer for 15 trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a 16 severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. 17 8 G.C.A. § 6535.2 18 To determine whether offenses are properly joined, courts traditionally consider 19 "whether the charges are laid under the same statute, whether they involve similar victims, 20
21 1 Section 55.35 is substantially the same as Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides: 22 (a) Joiner of Offenses. The indictment or information may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged - whether felonies or misdemeanors or both - are 23 of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan. 24 Fed. R. Crum. P. 8. 25 2 Section 65.35 is substantially similar to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides: 26 If the jointer of offenses or defendants in an indictment, an information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of 27 counts, sever the defendants' trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires. 28 Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a).
People v. Quintanilla Case No. CF0523-21 Decision and Order
Page 2 of 4 1 locations, or modes of operation, and the time frame in which the charged conduct occurred."
2 United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 973 (let Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "the
3 validity of the jointer is determined solely by the allegations in the indictment." United States
4 v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 572 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272 (9th
5 Cir. 1990)). "[T]he primary purpose of Rule 8(a) jointer is to ensure that a given transaction
6 need only be proved once.... Where there is substantial overlap in evidence between two
7 offenses, jointer eliminates the need to prove substantially the same evidence twice over, thus
8 realizing precisely the kind of economy envisaged by Rule 8(a)." Howerton v. United States,
9 964 A.2d 1282, 1292 (D.C. 2009) (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted),
10 see also Terry, 911 F.2d at 276 ("When ... joined offenses are not connected and are not
provable by the same evidence, jointer is improper."). Rule 8(a) is "construed broadly in favor
12 of initial jointer." United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 385 (nth Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
13 See also United States v. Boulanger, 444 F.3d 76, 87 (1st Cir. 2006) (construing Rule 8(a)
14 generously in favor ofjoinder) .
15 Defendant argues that the First Charge should be severed from the remaining charges for
16 trial because the "evidence likely would confuse and inflame the jury as the indictment simply
17 lumps together charges which are not factually related, nor are they related to a single instance
18 of alleged conduct." (Mot. Sever at 3). The Government opposes, arguing that "Defendant's
19 acts of family violence and the sexual assaults evince a pattern of conduct that indicates a
20 common scheme or plan by the Defendant" and that "the victim's testimony on the physical
21 abuse she suffered is inexplicably intertwined with the sexual assaults." (Opp'n at 4, Nov. 23,
22 2021).
23 The Court acknowledges that all charges involve the same alleged victim, N.M.M.
24 (DOB: 09/03/1989). However, the First Charge of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a
25 First Degree Felony) alleges conduct occurring between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012,
26 while the remaining charges allege conduct occurring roughly ten (10) years later between
27 December 1, 2020 and September 20, 2021. (Indictment, Oct. 19, 2021). Although there may
28 be evidence that overlaps between the charges by virtue of them being against the same alleged
People v. Quintilla Case No. CF0523-2 l Decision and Order
Page 3 off 1 victim, the Court does not find that they were part of the same act or transaction, nor did they
2 necessarily constitute part of a common scheme or plan, as currently charged in the Indictment.
3 Defendant is not charged with any acts of family violences occumlng during the period from
4 2011 and 2012, the time frame alleged in the First Charge. Defendant is also not charged with
5 any acts of criminal sexual conduct occurring during the time frame alleged in the remaining
6 charges. The remaining charges include allegations occurring almost ten years later and
7 therefore do not suggest a pervasive pattern of abuse occurring over the span of ten years. As
8 "the validity of the jointer is determined solely by the allegations in the indictment," Jawara,
9 474 F.3d at 572, the Court finds that the First Charge should be severed from the remaining
10 charges at trial.
CONCLUSION
12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Sever
13 Charges for Purposes of Trial. A Status Hearing is set for March 22, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. via
14 teleconference.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 § "?1ayof February, 2022. 16
18 \
19 HONORABLE VERNON p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 20 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL 21 i=»1'8'8'?"»I.?£'"°~"."' "°.m 22 AL . Aw . 23 Date: 2''l751'T;m8I 'La £0
24 Ra Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam 25
26 3 The Court notes that while Defendant is not charged with family violence in the instant matter, he is charged 27 with Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) in CMOl50-20 against the same victim. Further, the Second Charge of Advanced Stalling (As a Second Degree Felony) in the instant matter, alleges Defendant was in violation of 28 contacting the victim in CMOl50-20.
People v. Quintanilla Case No. CF0523-2 l Decision and Order
Page 4 off