People v. Reyes

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 ) CRIMINAL tiZsfiN~:SciH5j8-4J 3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) ) 4 VS. ) RV, ) DECISION 'AND ORDER~ 5 ) 6 VINCENT ROY REYES, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) ) 8 ------------------------------) 9 This matter carne before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on April 10, 2012. 10

11 Attorney Randall F. Cunliffe appeared representing Defendant, who was present. Attorney

12 David Rivera appeared on behalf of the Government. Having reviewed the pleadings and the 13 arguments presented, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Defendant faces eight charges stemming from the traffic related death of Victoria T. 16

17 Camacho. The most serious crime Defendant is charged with is manslaughter with the special

18 allegation of possession and use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony. Defendant 19 filed a Notice of Motion and Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence on March 22, 2012. The 20 Government opposed on April 2, 2012 and Defendant replied on April 3, 2012. The Court 21 heard the Motion on April 10, 2012. 22 23 DISCUSSION

24 Motion to Exclude 25 Defendant now moves to exclude the Government from presenting any evidence of the 26 methods used by the Government of Guam to establish the speed limit at the area where the 27 incident took place. The Government argues that Defendant's Motion was filed after the motion 28

People v. Reyes, Decision and Order Civil Case No. CF0538-10 - Page 1 of4- deadline passed as controlled by the scheduling order filed on April 25, 2011. As discovery is 2 incomplete and Defendant has argued for the requested evidence for the entire duration of 3 discovery, the Court cannot now apply the scheduling order to Defendant's Motion. 4 Additionally, a motion to suppress evidence such as Defendant's current Motion In Limine, are 5 6 proper until the start of trial. 8 GCA § 65.15. The Government has struggled, at no apparent

7 fault of its own, to acquire the requested discovery. Furthermore, Government has never, until 8 now, contended that said discovery is unobtainable. On the contrary, the Government has 9 repeatedly explained that it continues to attempt discovery. As a result, the Court will allow 10 Defendant's Motion to stand because the Court finds good cause delay created by the 11

12 Government's difficulty in acquiring said discovery.

13 Discovery Violations 14 Defendant argues that the failure of the Government to provide discovery, regarding the 15 method the Government of Guam used to establish the speed limit at Route 15, Mangilao at the 16

17 place of the incident, requires sanctions. People v. Tuncap, 1998 Guam 13, ,-r23. The

18 Government claims that they performed their duties diligently only to conclude that the 19 requested discovery is not within the possession and control of the Guam Police Department, 20 but controlled by the Department of Public Works, Highway Division which is also a 21 Government of Guam entity. 22 23 Regardless of the requests by Defendant and argument by the Government, the Court

24 will not allow surprise evidence at trial. The Court finds, here, that the evidence likely exists 25 and Defendant is aware of it. The Government does not appear to have an unfair advantage of 26 time with the evidence that would concern the Court. The evidence, if it exists and becomes 27

People v. Reyes, Decision and Order Civil Case No. CF0538-1O Page 2 of 4- available will be immediately turned over to the Defendant to prepare for trial. At some point 2 the advent of trial will become too immediate and the evidence will be excluded by this Court. 3 In opposition, the Government appears to suggest that it will not be using the evidence at 4 trial as the Government finds the evidence immaterial and irrelevant "to the issue of whether the 5

6 Defendant was driving faster than the posted speed limit." See The Government's Opposition at

7 5. However, Defendant requests far greater exclusion from the Court. Defendant desires that 8 all evidence relating to his speed at the time of the incident be excluded for the Government's 9 discovery failure. The Court is not confident that a factual determination of Defendant's 10

11 culpability could be made without some testimony of his speed at the time the incident occurred.

12 The Court does, nevertheless, understand that an unfair advantage would be gained by the

13 Government to know of information and purposely not acquire it or spring it upon Defendant on 14 the eve of trial. Like the Defendant, the Court desires to see the evidence on how Guam speed 15 limits are set and how it relates to Defendant's culpability. However, the Court does not 16

17 currently find that such evidence is highly relevant.

18 The Court will require that the Government do its absolute best in acqumng said 19 information as soon as possible. The Court will reserve on this issue until a later time because 20 the Court cannot now speculate as to the surprise effect of the evidence on Defendant until the 21 appropriate time or the relevance of the requested discovery. As this Motion is a motion in 22 23 limine, the Court will provide the Government one more opportunity to bring the evidence at

24 issue before ruling it excluded. l Clearly trial in this case will be long after the trial date set in 25

26 1 The Court recognized Defendant's desire to get the requested discovery or penalize the Government for not being 27 able to acquire said discovery. The Court will not deem a renewed motion by Defendant untimely if the Government waits until the last possible minute to tum over the discovery or attempts to use the same evidence at 28 trial without first providing it through the discovery process. 8 GCA § 65.14 allows for motions to suppress evidence as long as they occur before the trial.

People v. Reyes r Decision and Order Civil Case No. CF0538-1O - Page 3 of 4- the scheduling order. If the Government is unable to provide the requested discovery two weeks

2 before trial, the Court will not allow the Government to then bring evidence on the methods 3 used to set speed limits on Guam. Yet, the Court is hesitant to deny all evidence relating to 4 Defendant's speed at the time of the incident due to the Government's inability to acquire that 5

6 evidence. In sum, the Court finds the issue not yet ripe and discovery of this piece of evidence

7 continues. The Court, although, cannot sanction the Government such that it would be unable to 8 present any testimony of the Defendant's speed at the time of the incident without a strong 9 showing in support of such a sanction. That showing is not yet present. For now, the evidence 10 does not appear to be crucially relevant to the case as it relates to the determination of speed 11

12 limits on Guam. As long as the delay to acquiring the discovery does not amount to surprise

13 against the Defendant, the Court desires to wait until closer to a set trial date for another motion 14 in limine. 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion In Limine. The Court 17

18 further orders that the Government provide the requested discovery if it is remotely possible to

19 do so and to provide that discovery expeditiously. The Parties will return May 30, 2012 at 20 9:00a.m. for a Pre-trial Conference. 21 ORDERED this \\0~day of May, 2012. 22

24 25

People v. Reyes, Decision and Order Civil Case No. CF0538-J 0 - Page 4 of4-