. Fain _
1
=1
x
s PERIOR SOUR:
GF QUAM
1 1 /kw egg» £3 3 .5 =-1* l 2 CLERi'( U? CLEQ OF COURT
COURT
3
4 IN IN THE
THE SUPERIOR
SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
Y
OF GUAM' ¢-1\»
GU.ur-"__
~~Y: . _ __
~
5
6 THE PEOPLE OF OF GUAM,
GUAM,
7 Criminal Case Crlmmal Case No. CF00l 1-21 and No. CF0011-21 and CF0586-20 vs.
8 DANNY DECISION DECISION ANDAND ORDER
DANNY VINCENT VINCENT RODRIGUEZ,
RODRIGUEZ,
9 (Motion (Motion for
for Judgment Acquittal)
Judgment of Acquittal)
(aka Daniel Daniel Vincent Rodriguez)
Rodrlguez)
DOB: DOB:09/03/1958 09/03/1958
10 10
11 11 Defendant. Defendant.
12 12
13 13
14 14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter matter came before the
the Honorable John
John C. Terlaje
Terlaje on
onFebruary
February 8,
8, 2024,
2024, during
during the
16 16 trial of Danny Vincent Rodriguez's Danny Vincent Rodriguez's ("Defendant") Motion Motionfor
forJudgment Acquittal. Curtis Judgment of Acquittal. Curtis C.
17 17 Van dh de veld appeared for Defendant.
appeared for Defendant. Assistant Assistant Attorney
Attorney Christine
Christine Santos Tenorio appeared appeared for
18 18 the People of ofGuam
Guam ("People').
("People').Based
Basedon
onthe
therelevant
relevantlaw
lawand
andauthorities
authorities the
the Court
Court now
now issues
issues
19 19 the following following decision decision and
and order REJECTING Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motion for
for Judgment of Acquittal.
Judgment of
20 20 BACKGROUND
21 th
22 On January 28th,
January 28 2021,Defendant , 2021, Defendantwas
wasindicted
indictedand
andcharged
chargedwith
with three
three counts
counts of
of First
23 Degree Criminal Criminal Sexual Conduct (As Sexual Conduct 1st Degree Felony)
(As a let Felony) and and nine
nine counts
counts of Second
Second Degree
24 24 Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct
Conduct (As aa 1st
pt Degree
Degree Felony).
Felony). Indictment
Indictment (January
(January 28,
28, 2021).
2021). Trial
25 commenced on December commenced on December 12, 12,2023.
2023.At
Atthe
theclose
closeof
of the
the People's
People's case-in-chief and the the close
close of
26 the evidence in the all the the case, case, Defendant
Defendantmoved
moved for
for a Judgement ofAcquittal, Judgment of Acquittal,arguing arguingthat
that there
there
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case No. CF0011-21
CF00l 1-21 and
and CF0586-20, People
People v.
v. Danny
Danny Vincent
Vincent Rodriguez
Rodriguez
Page 1 of7
11
evidence of
was insufficient evidence sexualcontact ofsexual and that contactand the indictment that the raised duplicity indictment raised concerns.
duplicity concerns.
2 Both parties were allowed Both parties to brief allowed to theissues briefthe raisedand issuesraised submitted said and submitted on February said briefs on 12, February 12,
3 2024. 2024.
4 DISCUSSION
5
6 court on motion of aa defendant The court motion, "shall order defendant or on its own motion, entry of aa order the entry
7 7 judgment of judgment of acquittal one or acquittal of one more offenses or more charged ininthe offenses charged indictment, information, theindictment, or information, or
8 the evidence on either side complaint after the ifthe side is closed if evidence is the evidence insufficient to is insufficient sustain a tosustain
9 conviction conviction of of such offense or
such offense or offenses."
offenses." 88 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §100.10
§ 100.10 (2005).
(2005). The
The Court
Court "must review the
the
10 10 evidence evidence presented thedefendant againstthe
presented against light most defendantininaa light favorable to most favorable government to the government to the
11 11 determine whether any rational trier any rational of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond trier of
12 12 a reasonable doubt." People reasonable doubt." v. Quinta, 1999 Guam People v. ,i 8.8. "If Guam 6 1] evidence or direct evidence
any direct is any
there is
"If there
13 13 substantial circumstantialevidence substantial circumstantial reasonablytending evidencereasonably prove the tendingtotoprove guilt of the the guilt accused, [this the accused,
14 14 court] court] must case was properly must find the case submitted to properly submitted the jury."
to the Taisacan, 2018 Guam v. Taisacan,
People v.
jury." People
15
16 ,i 17 ((quoting 23 1117 quoting People v. ,i 29).
v. Song, 2012 Guam 21 1] 29).
16
17 17 A.
A. The Theevidence
evidence regarding
regardingsexual
sexualcontact is sufficient contact is
18 18 Degree
Second Degree
Defendant contends Defendant that, regarding contends that, theSecond regardingthe Charge, Count Second Charge, Ten of Second Count Ten
19 19 (As a First Degree Felony), Criminal Sexual Conduct (As "thereisisno Felony),"there possibilitythat nopossibility rational trier that aa rational
20 of of fact fact could could find
find that
that the the crime essential elements of the the essential can be found crime can be proven found to be beyond aa proven beyond
21 reasonable WrittenBrief Def.'sWritten
doubt."Def.'s
reasonable doubt." in Supp.
Brief in of Mot.
Supp.of Judgm. of Mot. for Judge. Acquittal (February ofAcquittal 12, (February 12,
22 2024) ,i 4.4.Criminal 2024) 11 the offense, of the
elementof anelement ofan
proofof
requiresasasproof
Conductrequires
SexualConduct
CriminalSexual offense, evidence 23
24 satisfying the Sexual Contact, defined as "the intentional the definition of Sexual touching of intentional touching the victim's of the victim's
24
25 25 or actor's actor's intimate intimate pairs
parts or the
the touching
touching of covering the clothing covering
of the clothing immediate area the immediate the area of the
26 26 victim's or victim's oractor's actor'sintimate
intimateparts,
parts, ififthat
thatintentional canreasonably touchingcan
intentionaltouching be construed reasonably be as construed as
27 Decision and Decision Order
and Order
CF00l 1-21 and CF0586-20, People Case No. CF0011-21 v. Danny People v. Vincent Rodriguez Danny Vincent
Page 2 of? Page of 7
1
being being for for the
the purpose of sexual
purpose of sexual arousal or gratification."
arousal or gratification." 9 G.C.A. §§ 25.10(a)(8).
25.10(a)(8). Defendant
Defendant
2 asserts thatthe asserts that theevidence evidence of sexual contact of sexual is insufficient contact is the intentional insufficient regarding (1) the touching intentional touching
3 of of the the victim's victim's or
oractor's
actor'sintimate and (2)
parts and
intimate parts sexual arousal (2) sexual gratification. Def.'s Written arousal or gratification.
4
Brief Briefin in Supp.
Supp. of Mot. for
for Judge. ofAcquittal
Judgm. of (February 12, Acquittal(February 2024).
12, 2024).
5
6 a. There Thereisissufficient evidence of sufficientevidence intentional touching ofintentional or actor's touching of the victim's or intimate parts
7 7
8 Defendant claims that Defendant claims that the the touching
touching was limited to
was limited massage and to a massage did not
and did involve the
not involve
9 touching of intimate areas.
of intimate parts or intimate , 4. Conversely, the People areas. Id. 114. thevictim argue that the
People argue victim
10 of of the the specific specific charge,
charge, A.J.S.P., ondirect "testifiedon
A.J.S.P., "testified examinationthat directexamination theDefendant thatthe massaged Defendant massaged
11 11 her, culminatedininthe her, which culminated thetouching touchingofofher
hervagina."
vagina."Ppl. Opp.totoDef.'
's Opp.
Ppl.'s Mot. for s Mot.
Def.'s for Jud gm. of Judge.
12 12 Acquittal Acquittal (February (February13,
13, 2024)
2024),'ll 2.
2. Further,
Further, A.J.S.P.
A.J.S.P. demonstrated around turning around
"by turning
action "by
demonstrated this action
13 13 and showing the and showing the jury jury where
where her
her hands were." Id.
handswere." the Court record, the
the record, ofthe
Id. Upon review of can Court can
14 14 confirm confirm that jury heard that the jury heard testimony testimonythat
thatthe
theDefendant
Defendanttouched
touchedthe
thevictim's vagina.Therefore, victim'svagina. Therefore, 15 15 reviewing the the evidence
evidence in
in aa light
light most
most favorable to the evidence of there is sufficient evidence the People, there
16 16 intentional touching of intentional touching of the the victim's
victim's or
or actor's
actor's intimate
intimate parts.
parts.
17 17 b. There
Thereisissufficient
sufficientevidence
evidence of
of sexual arousal or gratification 18 18
19 19 Defendant contends that that"no
"no rational
rational jury
jury could find
find on
on these
these facts the requiredmens mensRea
rea
20 of contact for 'sexual gratification." Def.
Def.'s Written Brief
's Written Brief in
in Supp.
Supp.of
of Mot.
Mot. for
for Judgm.
Judge. of
contact for 'sexual gratification."'
21 Acquittal Acquittal (February 12, 2024)
(February 12, 2024) ,1 4.
4. The Defense
Defense does
does not
not cite
cite aasingle
singlecase this support this
case totosupport
22 contention. Conversely, the contention. Conversely, the People People cite several
several cases
cases in
in their
their opposition: "As to the element of opposition:"As
23 sexual sexual gratification, in criminal sexual sexualconduct
conductcases
casesinvolving
involving sexual
sexualcontact, 'specific evidence contact,'specific evidence 24 24 of of sexual sexual arousal arousal or gratification is not required.' People v. 20. 'In Callahan, 2022 Guam 3 ,1]20. v. Callahan, 'In 25 25 determining whether actions determining whether actions are aredone
donefor
for sexual
sexual arousal
arousalor
or gratification,
gratification, the trier of fact may the trier
26
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Order
Case No. CF0011-21
CF00l 1-21 and CF0586-20, v. Danny People v. People Vincent Rodriguez Danny Vincent
of7
Page 3 of
~ 28."
as
motivation based
infer motivation the defendant's actions.' People v.
based on the Enriquez, 2014 Guam v. Enriquez, 11 1128.
Guam 11
2 Ppl.'s Opp. to Def.'s's Mot.
's Opp. forJudge.
Mot. for Acquittal(February Judgm.ofofAcquittal 13, 2024)
(February13, ~ 3. Finally, in People v.
2024) 1[3.
3 4 "this court Morales, "this found sufficient court found evidence of sufficient evidence sexual arousal ofsexual or gratification arousal or when the child gratification when
4 5 victim testified that victim testified the defendant that the touched her breast, defendant touched vagina, and breast, vagina, buttocks."Id., andbuttocks." 2022 Id, citing 2022
5
6 Guam 1 ~ii 76. touching of the victim, this intentional touching
the finding above regarding intentional Given the
76. Given Court this Court
7 finds that sexual arousal that sexual orgratification arousalor canbe gratification can inferred. Thus, be inferred. thereisis sufficient Thus, there evidence of sufficient evidence
8 sexual orgratification.
arousalor
sexual arousal gratification.
9 c. The ThePeople
Peoplewill
willinclude gratification'
definition of 'sexual gratification'
the definition
includethe
10 10 Further, claims that Defendant claims
Further, Defendant the Second that the Charge, Count Second Charge, Ten is not properly pleaded, Count Ten
11 11 12 because notinclude doesnot
because ititdoes thedefinition includethe thephrase definitionofofthe phrase'sexual gratification.'
'sexual Written Brief Def.'s Written
gratification'Def.'s Brief 12 in Supp. Judgm.
for Jud
of Mot. for
Supp. of of Acquittal (February gm. of 12, 2024)
(February 12, ~ 4. An 2024) 114. An indictment which "tracks 13 13
14 14 the words of aa statute charging the statute charging sufficientas the offense is sufficient longas as long the words
as the unambiguously set words unambiguously
15 15 forth all the elements elements of
of the
the offense.See ofGuam See People of v. Torres, Guam v. 2014 Guam Tories, 2014 ~ 20 (citing Guam 88 1120 (citing
16 16 People of Jones, 2006 Guam Guam vv Jones, ofGuam 13 ~1]23).
Guam 13 not believe does not
Defendantdoes
thatDefendant
appearsthat
23). ItIt appears that believe that
17 17 the phrase The People Id. The
definition.Id.
needsaadefinition.
thusneeds
and thus
unambiguous, and is unambiguous,
'sexual gratification' is phrase 'sexual 18 18 argue that "indictments that that"indictments trackthe that track languageof thelanguage the statute of the areconsidered statuteare sufficient," but agree consideredsufficient,"
19 19 include the to include definitionofof'sexual the definition gratification'Ppl.'s 'sexualgratification.' Opp.totoDef.'s Ppl.'sOpp. Mot. for Def.'s Mot. Judge. of for Judgm.
20 Acquittal (February 13, 2024)
(February 13, ~ 3. Because 2024) 113. the Court declines to above, the
the above,
to the
agree to
People agree
the People
Because the
21 make make a decision about the definition whether the
about whether particular phrase ofaa particular
definition of the elements of a charge phrase in the
22 necessary for a proper pleading. is necessary pleading.
23
24 24
25
26
27 Decision and Decision Order
and Order
Case No.
No. CF00ll-21 and CF0586-20, People CF00l1-21 and v. Danny Vincent Rodriguez People v.
Page 4 of7 Page of 1 B.
B. The dangerofofduplicity Thedanger can be duplicitycan cured with be cured proper jury with proper instruction juryinstruction
2 Finally, argues that Defendantargues
Finally,Defendant because time is that because not an element of is not criminalsexual of criminal conduct 1, sexualconducts 3
3 are not facts to distinguish one charge from another,"
"there are and another," raising the danger of duplicity and 4 the jury
preventing the rendering a unanimous jury from rendering verdictas unanimousverdict requiredby asrequired law.Def.'s bylaw. Written Brief Def.'sWritten Brief
5 6 in Supp. Judgm.ofofAcquittal for Judge.
Supp. of Mot. for (February12, Acquittal(February 2024)1]~9.9.This 12,2024) that found that
has found
Courthas
ThisCourt
6 7 7 "Guam "Guam law requires a jury's law requires to be verdict to
jury's verdict unanimous." See be unanimous." People v.
See People Quenga, 2015 Guam 39 ~ii v. Quenga,
8 11 11 ((citing citing 88 GCA
GCA§105.30(a)(2005)).
§ 105 .30( a)(2005)).Further, Further,"an
"anindictment
indictment is
is considered
considered duplicitous if a single
9 count combines two count combines two or or more different offenses. A danger more different ofduplicity danger of that aa jury could find aa duplicity isis that
10 10 defendant an commission of an
the commission on the
verdict on
unanimous verdict
reaching a unanimous
count without reaching
guilty on aa count
defendant guilty 11 ~ 11 offense." Id. ii 11 (citing United United States 1007-08 (9 1003, 1007-08
557 F.3d 1003,
v. Renteria, 557
States v. th lath Cir. 2009)).
Cir.
12 12 . . . . . . .
Normally, duphcxty Normally, issues arise duplicity Issues when aa statute arise when specifiestwo statutespecifies or more two or ways in which an offense more ways offense 13 13 may may be committed, committed, and
and this
this Court found that has found
Court has criminal sexual that criminal conduct("CSC")
sexual conduct charges ("CSC") charges
14 14 generally are not duplicitous each count when each
duplicitous when alleges aa single countalleges See People single offense. See Quenga, People v. Quenga,
15 15 6 2015 Guam 391]~ 12.
Guam 39
116
Here, each CSC charge only alleges a single offense, SO there would not be aa so typically there
17 17
18 18 concern, concern; however, Defendant Defendant points that, under points out that, Guam law, "time is not considered an under Guam
19 19 essential element of essential element of criminal conduct." People v.
sexual conduct."
criminal sexual Guam 14 Campbell, 2006 Guam v. Campbell, ~ 27.
14 11 27. In
20 20 Guam, "where time Guam, "where element of time is not an element proof of crime, proof
of a crime, any date ofany before the
date before the return the return of the
21 indictment and within indictment and within the thestatute
statuteof support aaconviction."
to support
sufficient to
limitationsisis sufficient oflimitations People v.
conviction." People v.
22 Taisacan, ~ 28; Taitano, Taisacan, 2018 Guam 23 'H28, Taitano, 2015 Guam 33 ~ 16 quoting 33 1116 quoting People v. 1992 WL Atoigue 1992 v. Atoigue
23 245628. 245628. Thus, argues that Thus, Defendant argues reliance on Campbell that reliance will result Campbell will in overlapping result in timelines overlapping timelines
24 for for the CSC charges, creatingnovel charges, creating concerns.Def.'s duplicity concerns.
novel duplicity Written Brief Def.'s Written Supp.of Brief in Supp. Mot. for of Mot.
25
26 11 People of Guam v. Campbell, 2006 Guam 14 11 17.
11People of Guam v. Campbell, 2006 Guam 14 ,i 17.
27 Decision and Order Decision and
Case No.
No. CF00l and CF0586-20, 1-21 and
CF0011-21 People v. Danny Vincent CF0586-20, People Rodriguez Vincent Rodriguez
Page of7 Page 5 of
Judge. Judgm. of ofAcquittal
Acquittal(February 2024)1[,r 13.
12,2024)
(February12, 9th Circuit case, cited by to aa 9th
points to
Defendant points
13. Defendant
2 Quenga, where the unanimity this Court in Quenga, could not be discerned, conviction could
for aa conviction
requirement for
unanimity requirement
3 4 identical [and because "Counts II and III were identical was] possible [and itit was] that some jurors believed Count possible that
4 first alleged incident of breast touching while others may have believed Count III referred to the first 5
66 of breast touching." Id. 1],r 13)
III referred to the second alleged incident of of the (citing People of
13) (citing
7 7 Territory of Guam Albert Muna, Guam v.v. Albert Mina, 110 in Muna, Like in
(1997)). Like
110 F.3d 69 (1997)). the facts in this case do Mina, the
8 run the the risk
risk of
of confusing
confusing the
the jurors
jurors over
over which they are incidents they
which incidents ruling on, are ruling potentially on, potentially
99 undermining the jury's jury's ability
ability to
to form
form unanimous consent.
10 People distinguish Muna,
The People charges occurring on the Mina, however, because it "involved charges 11 11 same day, with no distinguishing distinguishing language
language between Opp. to them." Ppl.'s's Opp.
between them." Mot. for to Def.'s's Mot. Judgm.
for Judgrn.
12 12 of of Acquittal (February 13, ,r Further, the People argue that 13, 2024)114. that "while time and location are 13 13 not essential elements elements of CSC, time and location via testimony can be used to distinguish the 14 counts." Id. counts." (citing People Id (citing v. Callahan, People v. Callahan, 2022 Guam ,r 26).
13 1]
Guam 13 v. Riosen, 26). Further, in People v. Riosen, this 15 15 child, a 'separate instance' of Court held "that in cases of repeat sexual abuse of a child, penetration of penetration
16 16
17 17 the victim's fact in the
can be shown by tying each count to a salient fact v. Riosen, 2023 victim's life." People v,
18 18 Guam 23 ,r1]26. Thus, in 26. Thus, in order
order to
to address Defendant's duplicity concerns, "the People agree that address Defendant's
19 the jury instruction regarding the instruction regarding the time time should cannot find say that the jury cannot
should say that the find that charges
the charges
20 20 overlap overlap with each other, other, except in the case case of
of the corresponding mouth to and corresponding
cunnilingus and
the cunnilingus
21 primary genital area charges." Ppl.'s Opp. to Def.
charges." Ppl. 's Mot. for Judgm.
Def.'s Acquittal (February ofAcquittal
Judge. of 13, (February 13,
22 2024) ,r4. Given 2024) 'H 4. Callahan, this Court agrees and Callahan,
the holdings in Riosen and Given the that Defendant's agrees that
23 duplicity concerns can be cured with proper jury jury instruction.
24
25 25
26
27 Decision Decisionand Order
and Order
Case No. CF0011-21 Vincent Rodriguez CF00l 1-21 and CF0586-20, People v. Danny Vincent Page 6 of7 Page
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
3 For the
the reasons
reasons above,
above, the
the Court
Court REJECTS Defendant's Defendant's Motion for
for Judgment
Judgment of
4
5 Acquittal and and ORDERS that the parties provide the the discussed
discussed jury instructions.
5 )
6 so SOORDERED,
ORDERED, this - -
\91- - day of emf; 2024.
2024.
7
8 'I
9 HONOF E JOHN . .TERLAJE TERLAJE
10 Judge, Superi of Guam 11 11
12 12
13
14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Decision and Decision and Order
Case No.
No. CF00ll-21 and CF0586-20, CF00l1-21 and People v.
CF0586-20, People v. Danny Vincent Vincent Rodriguez
Page 7 of7 Page of