People v. Rodriguez

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: February 5, 2024
• Docket: CF0011-21 and CF0586-20
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

re.Lee :i.L...e r- ~ i -r:~ r-~ '»- ·u ; .. i:..; .. 1,..,,_,. ••.,/

s'uptRI@R S IDC ERIGR I()'··1::,•·, 'COUR L rr;i\1·,. I"Qt V 'J Ff-1 \ l

OF GUAM 11 Q QF 202% FEB J : .J'~}

2 CLERK UF CLERK OF c@uRT COURT 3 Q\.l. SEVEN L I ·.-..... 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 5

6 THE PEOPLE OF OF GUAM, GUAM,

Case No. No. CF0011-21 CF00l 1-21 and and CF0586-20 7 vs. 8 DANNY DECISION DECISION ANDAND ORDER DANNY VINCENT VINCENT RODRIGUEZ, RODRIGUEZ, 9 (Motion for Mistrial)

10 Defendant. Defendant. 11 11

12 12

13 13 INTRODUCTION

14 14 This matter matter came before the the Honorable Honorable John John C. Terlaje Terlaje on on December December18, 18, 2023, 2023, during during 15 15 the trial of the trial of Danny DannyVincent VincentRodriguez's Rodrlguez's("Defendant") ("Defendant") Motion for Mistrial. Defender Defender Curtis Curtis C. 16 Van de veld veld appeared appeared for Defendant. Assistant Attorney Christine Christine Santos Tenorlo appeared Santos Tenorio appeared for 17 17 the People of ofGuam Guam ("People'). ("People').Based Basedon onthe therelevant relevantlaw lawand andauthorities authorities the the Court Court now now issues issues 18 the following following decision decision and and order REJECTING Defendant's Motion for Mistrial. 19 19 BACKGROUND 20 On direct direct examination examination during trial, the during trial, the People asked asked Officer Officer Jorem Jorem Guardian, Guardian, who whq 21 interviewed interviewed the Defendant, whatthe Defendant, what theDefendant Defendantstated statedtotothe theOfficer. Officer.Ppl. Ppl.'s Opp.totoDef. 's Opp. Def.'s 's Mot. 22 22

23 for Mistrial. ~ 2, (December Mistrial. i12, (Decemberl 15 th 5'*', , 2023). 2023). On On cross-examination, cross-examination, the defense defense asked the police asked the

24 24 officer officer about about not not remembering remembering the interview details details with with the the Defendant. Defendant. During During redirect, redirect, the the

25 prosecution had the theofficer officer read exactly what he wrote about the the interview interview to make sure sure everyone everyone

26 what was was clear on what was asked askedand andanswered. answered.IdIdThe The police police officer officer proceeded proceeded to to read read his his entire entire 27 Decision Decision and and Order Case No. CF00l1-21 CF00ll-21 and and CF0586-20,People CF0586-20, People v. v. Danny Danny Vincent Vincent Rodriguez Rodriguez Page 1 of 5 1 1 interview with the interview the Defendant Defendant into into the the record, including a portion record, including portion that that illustrated illustrated that that the the \

2 Defendant invoked Defendant invoked his his right silence. Id. Defendant right to silence. Defendant objected and this objected and this Court oven'uled overruled it. 3 4 Defendant moved for a mistrial. mistrial. 4 DISCUSSION 5

6 "[A]mistrial "[A] mistrialisisrequired requiredififthe themisconduct misconduct ofofthe thejury juryprejudiced prejudiced the the defendant defendant to the the

7 extent that that he he or or she shedid didnot notreceive receive aafair trial." People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ,r fair trial." 1]89 89(quoting (quoting th 8 Betty, 627 F.2d 193, States v.v. Berry, United States 193, 197 197 (9 (9'*' Cir. 1980)). "Trial Cir. 1980)). courts generally "Trial courts generally have have broad broad

9 discretion in discretion ofaa mistrial, in adjudging the propriety of mistrial, granting granting such such a motion only where so dictated

10 'manifest necessity' by 'manifest necessity' or in order to to serve serve the the 'ends 'ends of of public publicjustice."' justice."' People v. Pugh, 2016 11 11 ,r 31 (citing Guam 22 1131 Illinois v. (citing Illinois Somerville, 410 U.S. 459, v. Somerville, 459, 461-63 461-63 (1973)). "Thedefendant (1973)) "The defendant has has 12 12 the burden burdenof of proving that there there was was an an abuse abuseof of discretion, discretion, and andwhere, where, the the court courtisis to to review review a 13 mistrial, 'the motion for mistrial, 'the power power ought ought to to be be used used with withthe thegreatest greatest ofofcaution cautionunder under urgent urgent 14 14 circumstance, and circumstance, andfor forvery very plain plainand andobvious obviouscauses." Id (citations causes."Id. (citations omitted). 15 15 A. Neither Neithermanifest manifestnecessity necessity nor the the ends of public public justice dictate granting granting a mistrial 16 16

17 17 The Fifth Fifth Amendment Amendment of of the the United United States States Constitution provides provides that that"[ "[n]o Jo person... shall shall 18 18 against himself." be compelled to testify against Const. amend. himself." U.S. Const. amend. V. In Miranda Miranda v. v. Arizona, the Arizona, the 19 19 United States United States Supreme Court held that that the the Fifth Fifth Amendment Amendment forbids the the use use of of the the Defendant's Defendant's 20 post-custodial silence as post-custodial silence as substantive substantiveevidence evidence of of the Defendant's guilt. guilt. 384 384 U.S. U.S. 436, 436, 467-68 467-68 21 n.37 (1966). n.37 (1966). "Evidence ofaadefendant's "Evidence of defendant'ssilence silenceininpre-custodial pre-custodialororcustodial custodialcircumstances circumstances 22 violates the the Fifth Fifth Amendment Amendment privilege privilegeagainst againstself-incrimination, self-incrimination, when whenused used as as substantive substantive 23

24 24 evidence of guilt. evidence as Guam 22 2016 Guam Pugh, 2016 guilt." Pugh, ,r 38. The 22 Tl The Supreme Supreme Court Court of ofGuam Guam adjudges adjudges

25 to aa defendant's prosecutorial references to defendant's silence silenceunder underaaharmless harmless error error standard.See standard. See People v. v.

26 26 Murifok, Muritok, 2003 Guam ,r 24. Guam 21 1124.

27 Decision and Decision and Order Case No. CF0011-21 People v. CF00l 1-21 and CF0586-20, People v. Danny Vincent Rodriguez Danny Vincent Page 2 of Page 5 of S 11 ThePeople a. The Peopledid didnot notintroduce introduceevidence evidenceofofthe theDefendant Defendantinvoking invokinghis 5th his5th Amendment privilege use as privilege for use as substantive substantive evidence of guilt 2

3 The Fifth Fifth Amendment Amendment of ofthe the United United States States Constitution Constitution provides provides that that "[n]o person . "[n]o person..

4 4 shall be compelled to to testify testify against against himself." himself." U.S. Const. amend. amend. V. In Miranda V. In Miranda v. Arizona, the v. Arizona, 5 States Supreme Supreme Court United States Court held held that thatthe theFifth Fifth Amendment Amendment forbids the the use use of of the the Defendant's 6 . . . . . post-custodial silence post-custodlal silence as as substantive substantive evidence evldence of of the the Defendant's guilt. guilt. 384 384 U.S. U.S. 436, 436, 467-68 467-68 7 n.37 "Evidence ofofa adefendant's n.37 (1966). "Evidence defendant'ssilence silenceininpre-custodial pre-custodialororcustodial custodialcircumstances circumstances 8 violates the Fifth Fifth Amendment Amendment privilege privilegeagainst againstself-incrimination, self-incrimination, when whenused used as as substantive substantive 9 evidence of guilt." evidence People v. guilt." People Guam 22 v. Pugh, 2016 Guam ~ 38. The 22 1138. The Supreme Supreme Court of Guam Guam adjudges adjudges 10 prosecutorial references references to to aa defendant's defendant's silence silenceunder underaaharmless harmless error error standard. standard. See People v. v. 11 11

12 Guam 21 Muritok, 2003 Guam Murifok, ~ 21 1124. 12

13 13 Defendant argues that Defendant argues thatthe theadmission admissionof of the the following following testimony testimony by Officer OfficerGuardian Guardian

14 14 violates Defendant's due due process underthe process under the law: law: "After "After making making that that statement, statement, II asked if he asked if he

15 15 had any similar experiences with [Defendant] had with any any of of Abigail's sisters. Rodriguez Abigail's sisters. Rodrigueztold toldme me that that he 16 16 felt uncomfortable uncomfortable answering answering that question and and did did not wish to answer answer any other questions. questions. I 17 17 and ended acknowledged and endedmy myinterview." interview." Def.'s 's Mot. Mot. for forMistrial Mistrial~ 2, (Dec. 1]2, (Dec. 14, 14, 2023). 2023). Defendant Defendant 18 18 cites People v. v. Diego, where the Guam Diego, where Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court found found harmless harmless error based based on the the 19 19 evidence against overwhelming evidence against the the Defendant. Defendant. See See People v, ~ 5 and~~ Guam 5511 v. Diego, 2016 Guam 'W 20 27-32. also cites People v. 27-32. Defendant also v. Ongil, 2006 Guam 34, 34; People v. Pugh, 2016 Guam 22, 22; 21 22 People v. People v. Aidan, Guam 19 Aldan, 2018 Guam 19 (holding (holding that that the the same same harmless harmless error combined combined with with mulfzple multiple 22

23 other violated due other errors violated due process).

24 The People People argue argue that they, "only elicited that they, elicited the the information infonnation regarding regarding the entirety entirety of the

25 Defendant's interview on on redirect redirect examination examination to to rehabilitate rehabilitate defense defense counsel's attack attack of the the

26 accuracy of accuracy of the the police police officer's officer's memory regarding regarding the the interview." interview." Ppl. 's Opp. Ppl.'s Opp. to to Def. Def.'s Mot. for

27 Decision Decision and and Order Case No. CF0011-21 CF00l 1-21 and CF0586-20, People v. CF0586-20, People v. Danny Danny Vincent Vincent Rodriguez Rodriguez Page Page 3 of 5 1 ,r 4-5, (December Mistrial. 114-5, 15th, 2023). (December 15'h, 2023). Further, Further,"the "the People mention the Defendant's People did not mention 2 silence in in opening statements ordirect statements or directexamination" examination" and and"the "the People People will will not not use the the Defendant's Defendant's 3 4 silence in in closing statements." statements." Id. Although Althoughharmless harmless error error review reviewdoes doesnot notapply, apply, because because this this 4 1 is not an appellate , the appellate courts, thePeople People argue argue persuasively persuasively that the the testimony testimony entered into the the record record 5

6 is not not improper improper under under Muritok. To determine, determine, "whether "whether improper improper testimony testimony regarding regarding aa

7 defendant's silence is harmless, defendant's silence threefactors harmless, three factorsare considered:"(I) areconsidered: "(I) the the extent extent of ofthe the comments comments

8 made, made; (2) whether whether an inference inference of guilt guilt Hom from silence silence was was stressed to the stressed to thejury; jury, (3) (3) the extent extent of

9 other evidence suggesting the defendant's suggesting the defendant's guilt." guilt." See People v. Muritok Muritok 2003 Guam 21 ,r 24 21 1]

10 (quoting (quoting United United States States v.v.Pino-Noriega, Pine-Noriega, 189 189 F.3d 1089, 1099). Utilizing 1089, 1099). Utilizing this this analysis, analysis, the the Guam Guam 11 11 Supreme Court found Supreme Court found that thatthere therewas was harmless harmlesserror errorwhen when(1) (1) and and Officer testified testified that that the the 12 12 Defendant invoked Defendant invokedhis his right right to to silence silenceand and (2) (2)that thatsilence silencewas wasnot notstressed stressed to to the the Jury. Jury. Id. 1] 26. ,r 13 13 Finally, Finally, the the People People persuasively persuasively distinguish distinguish all the the Defendant's Defendant's cases cases citing mistrial. See 14 14 15 People v, v. Aidan, Aldan, 2018 Guam Guam 99(issue (issue regarding regardingjury jury instruction, instruction, not nottestimony); testimony), People v. Cruz, 15 16 2016 Guam Guam 55 (Prosecutor (Prosecutor asked askedjury jury to to make make inference inference from silence during during summary), summary); People 16

17 17 v. Diego, 2016 Guam 55,r1i29-30 v. 29-30(invoked (invokedright rightwithout without making statements, statements, unlike unlike this case case where where

18 18 Defendant made made two statements), statements); and People v. and People Guam 34 ,r1]37 v. Ongiil, 2016 Guam 37 (issue (issue involved involved

19 19 prosecutor directly asking prosecutor directly asking officer officer about about the Defendant invoking right to to remain remain silent, which is

20 20 not the issue in the issue in this this case). case). The The People also also do not object, do not object, in in this this case, case, "to "toaajury juryinstruction instruction that that 21 advises the the jury jury that that the the Defendant's Defendant's silence should not be construed consuMedasasguilt." guilt." Ppl. Ppl.'s Opp. Opp. to 22 Def.'s Def. 'sMot. Mot.for forMistrial. ,r 4, (December Mistrial.114, 15 1\ 2023). (December15'*', 2023). Therefore, Therefore, because because the People People do do not not plan plan 23

25 11 Rule Rule103(a) 103(a)ofofGuam's Guam'sRulesRulesofofEvidence Evidenceserves servesasasadditional additionalfunction functionofofdelineating delineatingthe the procedural procedural requirements requirements during during trial trial in in order order for for aa party party to to preserve preserve aaharmless harmless error error claim claim on appeal.See See People v. v. Jesus, Jesus, 26 2009 Guam 2.2. 27 Decision Decision and and Order Case No.No. CF00l CF0011-21 and CF0586-20, People v. Danny Vincent CF0586-20, People Vincent Rodriguez Page 4 of 5 11 to emphasize testimony testimony regarding regarding silence to the jury, and for all all the the other other reasons reasons cited above, 2 the introductionof the introduction of this this evidence evidence is not substantive substantiveevidence evidence of of guilt. 3 b. The ThePeople Peopledid didnot notcommit commit prosecutorial prosecutorial misconduct misconduct 4

5 argues that Defendant argues thatthe the"Prosecutor "Prosecutor has has informed informed the the Court Court that thatshe sheisiswell well versed in

6 6 issue. Hence, this issue. Hence, the the court court should should find find the the admission admission of the evidence to rise of the rise to to prosecutorial prosecutorial 7 7 misconduct misconduct because becausethe the Prosecuting ProsecutingAttorney Attorneyisis not unfamiliar with not unfamiliar the issue with the issue and and the the 8 presentation was presentation purposeful to was purposeful to gain gainan anadvantage advantageover overDefendant." Defendant." Def. Def.'s Mot. for for Mistrial. Mistrial. 1]3, ,r 9 (December 141\ 2023). It (December 14'h, It is is speculative speculative for forthis this Court Courtto toassume assume that that the Prosecuting Attorney the Prosecuting 10 piade this presentation made presentation with any particular particular purpose, purpose, as even even the the Judiciary Judiciary cannot cannot read read minds. minds. 11 11 12 Further, theDefense Further, the Defensedoes doesnot notcite citeany anycase law or caselaw or legal legal rules mies with which which to to infer infer the the 12 innerworkings of innerworkings of the the Prosecutor's Prosecutor's mind mind (or (or the the Prosecutor's Prosecutor's "purpose") from behavior "purpose") from behavior observed 13 13

14 14 in court. ,r 3-4. Defense court. Id 1[3-4. Defensemerely merelyclaims claimsthat thatbecause because the the Prosecutor Prosecutor stopped stopped the the other witness,

15 15 Officer Savella,atatan OfficerSavella, pointininreading earlierpoint anearlier readingthe thepolice policereport reportthat thatthis this"demonstrates "demonstrates the the intent intent

16 16 to purposefully present evidence which was not properly admissible." Id present evidence ,r We Id 114. We cannot cannot agree.

17 17 Thus, the Thus, the People People did not commit commit prosecutorial prosecutorial misconduct. 18 18 CONCLUSION CONCLUSION AND AND ORDER 19 19 The Court Court will will instruct instruct the the jury jury not not totoconstrue construe the the Defendant's Defendant's silence silence during during the the 20 interrogation referenced interrogation referencedhere here as_ as.guilt. guilt. For For this reason and this reason and the the reasons reasons above, above, the the Court Court 21 REJECTS Defendant's Motion for Mistrial. 22

23 ORDERED, this SO ORDERED, this __e> S r~ Mn day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ 2024. _ _ day

25 HO BLE JO , C. c. TERLAJE Jung SupédOr curr of Guam 26

27 Decision and Decision and Order Case No. No. CF00l 1-21 and CF00l1-21 and CF0586-20, People v. People v. Danny Vincent Vincent Rodriguez Page 5 of 5 Page