People v. Sablan

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: July 19, 2012
• Docket: CF0069-12
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

J

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) ) 4 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF00069-12 vs. 5 ) ) 6 LAWRENCE EDWARD SABLAN, ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 7 Defendant. ) 8 )

10 This matter came before the Court on June 18, 2012 for a hearing on Defendant's 11 Motion for Jackson v. Denno Evidentiary Hearing re: Voluntariness of Statement, filed June 4, 12 2012 (hereinafter "Motion"). Present in court were the Defendant with his counsel, Assistant 13 Public Defender Mikaela Silkey, Esq., and Assistant Attorney General Christina Lum, Esq. 14 appeared for the People of Guam. 15 BACKGROUND 16 Defendant is charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as a 17 third degree felony and with assault as a misdemeanor in relation to an alleged riot in Agat. On 18 June 4, 2012, he filed the present motion for an evidentiary hearing "to determine the factual 19 context surrounding statements made by Mr. Sablan," because, "the testimony ... willlikely be 20 the basis for a subsequent motion to suppress." Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Support of 21 Motionfor Evidentiary Hearing, p.2, Ins.14-15, filed June 11,2012 (hereinafter "Reply"). The 22 Government filed their written People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Jackson v. Denno 23 Evidentiary Hearing on May 24, 2012 (hereinafter "Opposition"), and in response Defendant 24 filed his written Reply to said Opposition, as referenced above. 25 DISCUSSION 26 Defendant bases his motion on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Jackson v. Denno, 378 27 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774 (1964), and 8 GCA §§ 61.15 & 65.45, which require motions to 28 suppress to be filed before trial. Pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, a criminal defendant has the due

OR \G\N I Page 1 of3 process right to object to the use of a confession in evidence and to have its voluntariness and 2 admissibility determined by a judge at some stage of the criminal proceedings. 378 U.S. at 376- 3 77. In Jackson v. Denno, the Court addressed how to remedy the denial of a fair hearing at state 4 trail and stated: 5 This is not a case where the facts concerning the circumstances surrounding the confession are undisputed and the task is only to judge the 6 voluntariness of the confession based upon the clearly established facts 7 and in accordance with proper constitutional standards. Here there are substantial facts in dispute ... As we have already said, Jackson is entitled 8 to a reliable resolution of these evidentiary conflicts .... At the very least, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770, would 9 require a full evidentiary hearing to determine the factual context in which 10 Jackson's confession was given. /d. at 392. II In Townsend the U.S. Supreme Court held: "Where the facts are in dispute, the federal 12 court in habeas corpus must hold an evidentiary hearing if the habeas applicant did not receive a I3 full and fair evidentiary hearing in a state court, either at the time of the trial or in a collateral 14 proceeding." 372 U.S. 293, 312,83 S.Ct. 745 (1963). 15 Here, Defendant relies upon Jackson v. Denno as authority to summarily move for an 16 "evidentiary hearing to determine the context" of his alleged confession. Reply, p.5, Ins.8-9. 17 However, for an evidentiary hearing to be required, 18 [t]he question is whether the allegations in the moving papers, including 19 affidavits if any are filed, are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and 20 nonconjectural, to enable the court to conclude that a substantial claim is presented. If the allegations are sufficient, and factual issues are raised, a 21 hearing is required. Cohen v. United States, 378 F.2d 751, 761 (9th Cir.1967). 22 Here, the Defendant does not object to the voluntariness of his confession and he does 23 not raise any issue of relevant fact regarding its suppression. He only asserts as a matter of law 24 that Jackson v. Denno requires a full evidentiary hearing to determine the factual context of any 25 confession regardless of any allegation of involuntariness. This is an incorrect overstatement of 26 the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Jackson v. Denno, first, because there is a clear 27 jurisprudence to predicate evidentiary hearings upon factual claims and, secondly, the Jackson 28 v. Denno decision itself addressed a habeas remedy after factual claims were presented.

P\' 'Page of3 Furthermore, Defendant offers no authority for this rather unique interpretation of Jackson v. 2 Denno. 3 Federal courts addressing this issue have unequivocally held otherwise: "A pretrial 4 hearing has been denied as premature where the evidence sought to be suppressed was not 5 specifically identified ... " Cohen, 378 F.2d, at 761 n.20 (citation omitted). "The burden is upon 6 the defendant to establish [grounds for suppression]. That burden requires allegations of 7 evidentiary facts upon personal knowledge, or at least disclosure of the sources of the 8 deponent's information and the grounds for his belief, to support a demand for a hearing. 9 United States v. Pardo-Bolland, 229 F.Supp. 473, 475 (S.D.N.Y.1964); see u.s. v. Frank/eld, 10 100 F.Supp. 934, 936 (D.Md.1951). "When an order to suppress is sought ... , a motion 11 unsupported by an affidavit setting forth the facts upon which the contention is based is 12 insufficient and should be denied. United States v. Vomero, 6 F.R.D. 275, 276 (E.D.N.Y.1946). 13 Essentially it is held that "[e]videntiary hearings need be held only when the moving 14 papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to 15 conclude that relief must be granted if the facts alleged are proved." United States v. Carrion, 16 463 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1972) (citation omitted). "Moreover, factual allegations which are 17 general and conclusory or based upon suspicion and conjecture will not suffice .... " Cohen, 18 378 F.2d at 760. 19 However, Defendant here fails to allege at all that his statement was involuntary, much 20 less does he set forth any facts in his moving papers to support such an allegation. For this 21 reason, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to suppress without prejudice, such that 22 Defendant is free to refile his motion at a later time with sufficient factual allegations. 23

24 SO ORDERED this ~'h", day of July, 2012, nunc pro tunc to June 18,2012. 25

~~ 26

28 Judge, Superior Court of Guam

OR \G\~L Page 3 of3