People v. Riosen

Opinion

FILED SUPERWR COURT

1 OF GUAM 2 2021 DEC 16 PHI?: 16

4 CLERK

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0298-19 8 GPD Report No. 19-14796 V.

9 DECISION AND ORDER 10 RINEXT RIOSEN, DENYING THE PEOPLE’S MOTION DOB: 12/24/1980 TO OBTAIN AUDIO RECORDINGS 11 FROM COURT Defendant.

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on December 7, 2021 for 15 hearing on Defendant Rinext Riosen’s (“Defendant’s”) Motion to Obtain Audio Recordings from 16 Court (“Motion”). Assistant Attorney General Sean Brown represents the People, and Terence 17 Timblin represents Defendant. Having duly considered the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, and the 18 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order and DENIES the People’s 19 Motion. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Defendant is charged with Charge One: Three Counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual 22 Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony) with Special Allegation: Vulnerable Victim, and Charge Two: 23 Three Counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony) with Special 24 Allegation: Vulnerable Victim. $c~ Superseding Indictment (Feb. 19, 2021). Defendant is accused 25 of sexually penetrating V.F. (“Victim”), a minor under 14 years old. Id. The Victim gave birth to a 26 child, M.G.F. (“Child”) on July 31, 2019. This is roughly eight-to-nine months after the alleged 27 sexual assault, and Victim suspects Defendant is the one who impregnated her. See Magistrate’s 28 Complaint (May 24, 2019).

Decision and Order Denying the People’s Motion to Obtain Audio Recordings from Court CF0298.-19, People of Guam v. Rinext Riosen Pagelof4 1 A Person in Need of Services petition was filed in JP0205-19 concerning Victim and her 2 Child. $ç~ JP0205-19 Petition for Person In Need of Services (Aug. 5, 2019). A Further 3 Proceedings in JP0205-19 was heard on November 10, 2020. JP0205-19 Minute Entry (Nov. 4 10, 2020). During that hearing, Defendant allegedly made incriminating statements regarding his 5 belief of paternity over Child. See Motion at 3 (Jul. 9, 2021). 6 On July 9, 2021, the People filed their Motion to Obtain Audio Recordings from Court. The 7 People seek to admit the recordings as both a party opponent admission and a statement against 8 interest. Id. at 3. 9 On September 22, 2021, Defendant filed his Opposition to Motion (“Opposition”). 10 Defendant argued that release of the audio recordings is prohibited by 19 G.C.A. § 5122. See 11 Opposition at 3 (Sep. 22, 2021). Furthermore, Defendant argued that a third party may not testify 12 as to what she heard Defendant say in the proceedings because his statements are privileged as well. 13 Id.at4. 14 The Court held a hearing on December 7, 2021. After hearing the arguments of the parties, 15 the Court denied the People’s Motion. 16 DISCUSSION 17 I. The audio recordings are inadmissible because the People have failed to establish a 18 legitimate interest warranting their inspection. 19 19 G.C.A. § 5122 establishes the baseline rule that the audio recordings from 20 JP0205-19 are sealed to everyone except those the Court determines hold a legitimate 21 interest therein. Specifically, 19 G.C.A. § 5122 provides: 22 The court shall make and keep records of all cases brought before it, and shall devise and cause to be printed such forms for social and legal records and 23 such other papers as may be required. The court’s official records shall be 24 opened to inspection only as provided by § 5123 or by order of the judge to persons having a legitimate interest therein. All information obtained 25 and social records prepared in the discharge of official duty by any employee of the government of Guam at the request of the court, or by the Department 26 of Youth Affairs, shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed directly, or 27 indirectly to anyone other than the judge or others entitled under this Chapter to receive such information, except as provided § 5123 of this Chapter or 28 unless and until otherwise ordered by the judge.

Decision and Order Denying the People’s Motion to Obtain Audio Recordings from Court CF0298-19, People of Guam v. Rinext Riosen Page2of4 1 The People have failed to establish their legitimate interest in the audio recordings. 2 The People claim their interest is so they can admit the statements without having to go 3 through a third party who would otherwise testify what she heard Defendant say in JP0205- 4 19. See Motion at 3 (Jul. 9, 2021). However, “a person with a legitimate interest in the 5 proceedings... refers only to a person who has a direct involvement with the juvenile court 6 proceedings or the events in question.” ~ Doe v. Allentown School District, 2008 WL 7 5111917 (E.D. Pa 2008). The People have alleged no direct involvement in JP0205-19 8 warranting their inspection of the audio records. 19 G.C.A. § 5122 reflects a heavy bias 9 towards safeguarding records concerning juvenile proceedings, and the People have failed to 10 meet the standards required to show their legitimate interest. 11 The People also point to 19 G.C.A. § 133 11(a) as a justification towards admitting 12 the audio. See Motion at 3 (Jul. 9,2021). 19 G.C.A. § 133 11(a) provides: 13 Any testimony or other evidence produced by a party in a child protective proceeding under this Chapter which would otherwise be unavailable may be 14 ordered by the court to be inadmissible as evidence in any other 15 territorial civil or criminal action or proceeding, if the court deems such an order to be in the best interests of the child.

16 The People argued that the Court should release the audio because doing so would be 17 in the best interests of Victim and Child. See Motion at 3 (Jul. 9, 2021). However, the 18 People are misconstruing the law. 19 G.C.A. § 13311(a) does not allow the Court to admit 19 otherwise inadmissible evidence if doing so serves the child’s best interests. 19 G.C.A. § 20 13311(a) is a law of exclusion, not inclusion, and is thus not applicable here.

21 II. Marcelia Cevallos may testify as to what she heard Defendant say in JPO2OS-19.

22 The People plan to bring Marcelia Cevallos on as a witness if the audio recordings 23 are ruled inadmissible. See Motion at 3 (Jul. 9, 2021). Ms. Cevallos would testify that she 24 heard Defendant say the incriminating statement during the JP0205-19 Further Proceedings.

25 Defendant claims the statement is barred under 19 G.C.A. § 5122 because it was spoken 26 during a Juvenile Proceedings matter. See Opposition at 2 (Sep. 22, 2021).

27 28

Decision and Order Denying the People’s Motion to Obtain Audio Recordings from Court CF0298-19, People of Guam v. Rinext Riosen Page 3 of 4 1 “A statement is not hearsay if... the statement is offered against a party and is the 2 party’s own statement.” See 6 G.C.A. § 801(d)(2)(A). Because this concerns a statement 3 Defendant allegedly said, it is not barred by the hearsay rule. 4 Furthermore, 19 G.C.A. § 5122 establishes that “records prepared in the discharge of 5 official duty by any employee of the government of Guam at the request of the court... shall 6 be privileged and shall not be disclosed.” Here, the People are not seeking to admit official 7 records of the court. Rather, they just want Ms. Cevallos to testify as to what she heard. 8 Therefore, the statement is not privileged and may be admitted through Ms. Cevallos’ s 9 testimony. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the People’s Motion. The audio recordings 12 of JP0205-19 will not be provided to the People, and they may not be admitted into evidence. 13 However, Ms. Cevallos may testify as to what she heard spoken during JP0205-19. 14 Dec. 16, 2021

15 IT IS SO ORDERED this ____________________ nunc pro tunc to December 7, 2021. 16 17 18 19 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 20 21 22 23 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to:

24

Date:~~\L~ _____

27 Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam

28

Decision and Order Denying the People’s Motion to Obtain Audio Recordings from Court CF0298-19, People of Guam v. Rinext Riosen Page 4 of 4