I
FELE SUPERIOR COUr"€1` C5GU£M 1 2022 AUG 30 PSI 3: 59 2 CLERKOFCOURT 3 BY= 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 Plaintiff Case No. CFOl49-22 8 vs. 9 DECISION AND ORDER (Motion for Leave of Court to Place STAN MATTHEW RICALDE, 10 Defendant's Mental State at Issue and to (aka Stan Mathew Ricalde) Request for a Second Forensic Evaluation) 11 Defendant. 12
15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on July 18, 2022, for
16 Further Proceedings on Stan Matthew Ricalde's ("Defendant") Motion for Leave of Court to 17 Place Defendant's Mental State at Issue and to Request for a Second Forensic Evaluation 18 ("Motion for Second Forensic Evaluation"). Assistant Public Defender Earl Anthony V. 19 Espiritu appeared for Defendant. Assistant Attorney General Katherine M. Nepton appeared 20 for the People of Guam ("People"). Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, 21 the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Second Forensic Evaluation. 22
BACKGROUND 23
24 On March 25, 2022, the Grand Jury indicted Defendant on Eight Counts of Burglary (As
25 a Second Degree Felony). Indictment, Mar. 25, 2022. On April 13, 2022, Defendant pled Not
26 Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness, Disease, or Defect. Minute Entry, Apr. 13, 2022. Pursuant
Page 1 of 6 I
1 to 9 GCA § 7.25, the Client Services and Family Counseling Division of the Superior Court of 2 Guam ("CSFC") arranged for Defendant to undergo a forensic evaluation with a qualified 3 4 psychologist. Order for Forensic Evaluation, Apr. 13, 2022. On April 29, 2022, Defendant
5 underwent his forensic evaluation with Dr. Juan Rapadas, an expert clinical psychologist at
6 CSFC. Forensic Evaluation at 2, May 2, 2022. Dr. Rapadas concluded that "[a]s a result of this
7 evaluation, ultimately it was my opinion that [Defendant] did not lack substantial capacity to
8 know or understand what he was doing, to know or understand that his conduct was wrongful,
9 or to control his actions especially as it pertains to the felony burglary charges." Id. at 8. 10 On May 19, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion. Mot. for a Second Forensic 11 Evaluation, May 19, 2022. The People did not tile an opposition. On July 18, 2022, the Court 12 held further proceedings and took Defendant's arguments under advisement. Minute Entry, 13 July 18, 2022. 14 DISCUSSION 15
Defendant requests the Court order a second evaluation with an independent 16
17 psychiatrist. Mot. for a Second Forensic Evaluation at 1. Defendant states "[b]ased on
18 counsel's meeting with Defendant, and in light of Dr. Rapadas's assessment that the Defendant
19 may be suffering from a Schizotypal personality disorder, it is defense counsel's position that
20 the Defendant's mental state may still be at issue and that a more thorough, in-depth 21 psychiatric evaluation is necessary." Id. at 3. 22 The Supreme Court of the United States has found that constitutional principles of due 23 process require the government to provide access to the assistance of a competent psychiatrist 24 when a defendant's mental state is at issue and he cannot otherwise afford expert assistance. 25 26 Aka v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, .83 (1985). Due process requires that the government, at
27 minimum, "assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an
Page 2 of 6 a
1 appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense." 2 Id. The Supreme Court of the United States noted that this right does not allow an indigent 3 4 defendant "to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own."
5 Id.
6 Title 9 G.C.A. § '7.25(b) provides "[w]henever, in the opinion of the court, any other
7 expert evidence concerning the defendant's mental condition is, or will be required by the court
8 or either party, the court shall appoint one or more such experts to examine the defendant and
9 to report upon his mental condition as the court may direct." Neither the Supreme Court of the
10 United States nor the Supreme Court of Guam have specifically addressed whether a neutral 11 state psychiatrist satisfies constitutional due process, and federal circuit courts reach distinct 12 conclusions on this issue. See Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376, 391 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting 13 several circuit courts have held that constitutional due process "... is not satisfied unless the 14 defendant is provided an independent psychiatrist-i.e., the appointment of a neutral court 15
16 psychiatrist, such as in the matter at hand, does not satisfy due process."), see also Granviel v.
17 Lynaugh, 881 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding a neutral psychiatrist satisfies due process
18 guarantees of fundamental fairness), and Pawlyk v. Wood, 248 F.3d 815, 824 (finding a neutral
19 psychiatrist insufficient to satisfy constitutional due process only when the court is the fact-
20 finder). Guam trial courts have held that both constitutional and Guam law only require the 21 Court to appoint a neutral state psychiatrist. See People v. Steven Q. Rczbago, CF0506-10, 22 Nov. 11, 2012 ("Absent a showing that the Court appointed psychiatrist is unqualified to report 23 upon the Defendant's mental condition, there is no requirement that the Court pay for an 24 additional psychiatrist for the Defendant."), see also People v. Jose Weenie Aguczlo, CF0216- 25 07 and CF0400-08, Aug. 16, 2011 (finding the appointment of a qualified psychiatrist under 9 26
27 G.C.A. § 7.25 satisfies due process guarantees of fundamental fairness).
Page 3 of 6 1.
1 Defendant made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is 2 likely to be a significant factor at trial, and the Court provided Dr. Rapadas's assistance to 3 4 Defendant. Order for Forensic Evaluation, Apr. 13, 2022. The Court finds that Defendant's
5 constitutional right to the assistance of a psychiatrist was satisfied with the appointment of Dr.
6 Rapadas. Defendant states that he "[i]n his Forensic Evaluation report, Dr. Rapadas notes that
7 although the Defendant has no history of psychiatric treatment or psychotherapy, the
8 Defendant may be suffering from 'subclinical depression." Mot. for Second Forensic
9 Evaluation at 3. Defendant further asserts that a more thorough interview-including an
10 interview of Defendant's family-would aid Dr. Rapadas in determining whether Defendant 11 suffers from a personality disorder. Digital Recording at 10:05:45-10:54:14 (Mot. H'rg. July 12 18, 2022). Although additional evaluation and interviews may be helpful in determining 13 Defendant's possible personality disorder, the lack of additional interviews does not connote 14 15 that Dr. Rapadas was incompetent or that he conducted an inappropriate examination.
16 Defendant does not articulate a deficiency in Dr. Rapadas's report, rather, Defendant requests
17 additional evaluation to expand on Dr. Rapadas's report. Accordingly, as nothing in the record
18 suggests Dr. Rapadas was incompetent or conducted an inappropriate examination, the
19 constitutional due process requirements are satisfied. Neither constitutional due process nor
20 Guam law requires Defendant receive assistance from a second psychiatrist in this case. 21 Even so, 9 G.C.A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
I
FELE SUPERIOR COUr"€1` C5GU£M 1 2022 AUG 30 PSI 3: 59 2 CLERKOFCOURT 3 BY= 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 PEOPLE OF GUAM, 7 Plaintiff Case No. CFOl49-22 8 vs. 9 DECISION AND ORDER (Motion for Leave of Court to Place STAN MATTHEW RICALDE, 10 Defendant's Mental State at Issue and to (aka Stan Mathew Ricalde) Request for a Second Forensic Evaluation) 11 Defendant. 12
15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on July 18, 2022, for
16 Further Proceedings on Stan Matthew Ricalde's ("Defendant") Motion for Leave of Court to 17 Place Defendant's Mental State at Issue and to Request for a Second Forensic Evaluation 18 ("Motion for Second Forensic Evaluation"). Assistant Public Defender Earl Anthony V. 19 Espiritu appeared for Defendant. Assistant Attorney General Katherine M. Nepton appeared 20 for the People of Guam ("People"). Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, 21 the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Second Forensic Evaluation. 22
BACKGROUND 23
24 On March 25, 2022, the Grand Jury indicted Defendant on Eight Counts of Burglary (As
25 a Second Degree Felony). Indictment, Mar. 25, 2022. On April 13, 2022, Defendant pled Not
26 Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness, Disease, or Defect. Minute Entry, Apr. 13, 2022. Pursuant
Page 1 of 6 I
1 to 9 GCA § 7.25, the Client Services and Family Counseling Division of the Superior Court of 2 Guam ("CSFC") arranged for Defendant to undergo a forensic evaluation with a qualified 3 4 psychologist. Order for Forensic Evaluation, Apr. 13, 2022. On April 29, 2022, Defendant
5 underwent his forensic evaluation with Dr. Juan Rapadas, an expert clinical psychologist at
6 CSFC. Forensic Evaluation at 2, May 2, 2022. Dr. Rapadas concluded that "[a]s a result of this
7 evaluation, ultimately it was my opinion that [Defendant] did not lack substantial capacity to
8 know or understand what he was doing, to know or understand that his conduct was wrongful,
9 or to control his actions especially as it pertains to the felony burglary charges." Id. at 8. 10 On May 19, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion. Mot. for a Second Forensic 11 Evaluation, May 19, 2022. The People did not tile an opposition. On July 18, 2022, the Court 12 held further proceedings and took Defendant's arguments under advisement. Minute Entry, 13 July 18, 2022. 14 DISCUSSION 15
Defendant requests the Court order a second evaluation with an independent 16
17 psychiatrist. Mot. for a Second Forensic Evaluation at 1. Defendant states "[b]ased on
18 counsel's meeting with Defendant, and in light of Dr. Rapadas's assessment that the Defendant
19 may be suffering from a Schizotypal personality disorder, it is defense counsel's position that
20 the Defendant's mental state may still be at issue and that a more thorough, in-depth 21 psychiatric evaluation is necessary." Id. at 3. 22 The Supreme Court of the United States has found that constitutional principles of due 23 process require the government to provide access to the assistance of a competent psychiatrist 24 when a defendant's mental state is at issue and he cannot otherwise afford expert assistance. 25 26 Aka v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, .83 (1985). Due process requires that the government, at
27 minimum, "assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an
Page 2 of 6 a
1 appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense." 2 Id. The Supreme Court of the United States noted that this right does not allow an indigent 3 4 defendant "to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own."
5 Id.
6 Title 9 G.C.A. § '7.25(b) provides "[w]henever, in the opinion of the court, any other
7 expert evidence concerning the defendant's mental condition is, or will be required by the court
8 or either party, the court shall appoint one or more such experts to examine the defendant and
9 to report upon his mental condition as the court may direct." Neither the Supreme Court of the
10 United States nor the Supreme Court of Guam have specifically addressed whether a neutral 11 state psychiatrist satisfies constitutional due process, and federal circuit courts reach distinct 12 conclusions on this issue. See Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376, 391 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting 13 several circuit courts have held that constitutional due process "... is not satisfied unless the 14 defendant is provided an independent psychiatrist-i.e., the appointment of a neutral court 15
16 psychiatrist, such as in the matter at hand, does not satisfy due process."), see also Granviel v.
17 Lynaugh, 881 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding a neutral psychiatrist satisfies due process
18 guarantees of fundamental fairness), and Pawlyk v. Wood, 248 F.3d 815, 824 (finding a neutral
19 psychiatrist insufficient to satisfy constitutional due process only when the court is the fact-
20 finder). Guam trial courts have held that both constitutional and Guam law only require the 21 Court to appoint a neutral state psychiatrist. See People v. Steven Q. Rczbago, CF0506-10, 22 Nov. 11, 2012 ("Absent a showing that the Court appointed psychiatrist is unqualified to report 23 upon the Defendant's mental condition, there is no requirement that the Court pay for an 24 additional psychiatrist for the Defendant."), see also People v. Jose Weenie Aguczlo, CF0216- 25 07 and CF0400-08, Aug. 16, 2011 (finding the appointment of a qualified psychiatrist under 9 26
27 G.C.A. § 7.25 satisfies due process guarantees of fundamental fairness).
Page 3 of 6 1.
1 Defendant made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is 2 likely to be a significant factor at trial, and the Court provided Dr. Rapadas's assistance to 3 4 Defendant. Order for Forensic Evaluation, Apr. 13, 2022. The Court finds that Defendant's
5 constitutional right to the assistance of a psychiatrist was satisfied with the appointment of Dr.
6 Rapadas. Defendant states that he "[i]n his Forensic Evaluation report, Dr. Rapadas notes that
7 although the Defendant has no history of psychiatric treatment or psychotherapy, the
8 Defendant may be suffering from 'subclinical depression." Mot. for Second Forensic
9 Evaluation at 3. Defendant further asserts that a more thorough interview-including an
10 interview of Defendant's family-would aid Dr. Rapadas in determining whether Defendant 11 suffers from a personality disorder. Digital Recording at 10:05:45-10:54:14 (Mot. H'rg. July 12 18, 2022). Although additional evaluation and interviews may be helpful in determining 13 Defendant's possible personality disorder, the lack of additional interviews does not connote 14 15 that Dr. Rapadas was incompetent or that he conducted an inappropriate examination.
16 Defendant does not articulate a deficiency in Dr. Rapadas's report, rather, Defendant requests
17 additional evaluation to expand on Dr. Rapadas's report. Accordingly, as nothing in the record
18 suggests Dr. Rapadas was incompetent or conducted an inappropriate examination, the
19 constitutional due process requirements are satisfied. Neither constitutional due process nor
20 Guam law requires Defendant receive assistance from a second psychiatrist in this case. 21 Even so, 9 G.C.A. § '7.25(b) gives the Court discretion to appoint a second psychiatrist. 22 Defendant demonstrated the complexity of his mental state at the time of the offense during the 23 Further Proceedings, including outlining how additional evaluation would aid defense counsel 24 in determining whether Defendant has a personality disorder. Dr. Rapadas testified that he 25 "ruled out" the possibility that Defendant is schizotypal. Digital Recording at 10:05:45- 26
27 10:54:14 (Mot. H'rg. July 18, 2022). Dr. Rapadas explained that a "mle out" means the next
Page 4 of 6 r
1 diagnostic professional will keep an out for the condition, not that he is ruling out the 2 possibility that Defendant has the condition. Id. Dr. Rapadas also testified that Defendant 3 4 mentioned artificial intelligence and stated "things" controlled him. Id. The Court finds that
5 Dr. Rapadas's "rule out," his opinion that additional interviews would elucidate any
6 personality disorder, and Defendant's statements about artificial intelligence illustrate that
7 Defendant would benefit from a second evaluation. Therefore, the Court exercises its
8 discretion and orders Defendant undergo a second forensic evaluation.
9 Title 9 G.C.A. § 7.25(g) states "[e]ach psychiatrist appointed by the court who 10 . . . . . examlnes the defendant pursuant to thls Sectlon shall file a written report wlth the clerk of the 11 court who shall deliver copies to each party." Thus, the Court finds that the People are entitled 12 to a copy of the report that the independent psychiatrist generates and requests Defendant 13 ensure the People receive a copy. 14 The Court orders that CSFC perform a second evaluation. Should Defendant seek an 15
evaluation from a psychiatrist not employed by CSFC, the Court notes that Local Rules of the 16
17 Superior Court of Guam Miscellaneous Rule 1.1.4(c) states "[w]here counsel has received prior
18 authorization for investigators, experts and interpreters, the maximum total shall not exceed
19 $1,500.00. Counsel appointed under these rules may apply to the Administrator of the Courts
20 to exceed this maximum." Consequently, Defendant will need to keep costs within SI ,500.00 21 or apply to the Administrator of the Courts for additional funds if he chooses to use a 22 psychiatrist not employed by CSFC. The Court declines to provide input in this regard. 23
Page 5 of 6 r
1 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Second Forensic 3 Evaluation and ORDERS the Client Services and Family Counseling Division of the Superior 4 5 Court of Guam perform a second evaluation of Defendant.
8 so ORDERED, this 5 day of %<<¢ 2022.
I
9 `
10 <. .
11 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 12 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13
Page 6 of 6