People v. Sablan

Opinion

~ci~’ 1 .~< ~

2 2021 FEB18 ~M 1:2; CLERtc (W C CURT

I9 10 11 PEOPLE OF GUAM IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

12 CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0315-20 13 14 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 15 Re: Defendant’s Oral Motion for 16 Mistrial 17 MICHAEL JASON MENDIOLA 18 SABLAN, 19 DOB: 09/27/1976 20 Defendant. 21 22 INTRODUCTION 23 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Anita A. Sukola on February 17, 24 2021. The People of Guam are represented by Assistant Attorney General Jeremiah B. 25 Luther. The Defendant, Michael Jason Mendiola Sablan (“Sablan”), is represented by 26 Public Defender John P. Morrison. Defendant Sablan was also present. After the Court 27 spoke to the foreperson of the jury during jury deliberations in the above captioned matter, 28 Sablan orally moved for a’ mistrial. The Court reviewed the arguments presented by both 29 parties, and GRANTED the motion from the bench. The Court now issues this Decision 30 and Order memorializing that ruling. 31 BACKGROUND

CFO3 15-20, People of Guam v. Michael Jason Mendiola Sablan. Page 1 of 3 Decision and Order (Re: Defendant’s Oral Motion for Mistrial). 1 BACKGROUND 2 On July 31, 2020, Sablan was charged with: FIRST DEGREE CRIMINAL 3 SEXUAL CONDUCT (As a First Degree Felony); and SECOND DEGREE 4 CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT (As a First Degree Felony). See Indictment (July 5 31, 2020). A jury trial on the matter began on February 8, 2021, which lasted four (4) days 6 until February 11, 2021. The jury began deliberating on February 12, 2021. 7 On February 17, 2021, after receiving two juror notes claiming that the jury could 8 not reach a unanimous verdict during the course of deliberations, the Court spoke to the 9 foreperson, who indicated for the second time that the jury was in a deadlock. The Court 10 then called in the jury and read them an Allen Charge instruction, imploring them to 11 continue deliberations. 12 Two (2) hours later, the Court again spoke to the foreperson, who indicated again, 13 that the jury was in a deadlock. See Minute Entry (Feb. 17, 2021). The Defendant orally 14 moved for a mistrial and the People did not object. Id. The Court granted a mistrial from 15 the bench and released the jury. Id. The Court now issues this Decision and Order to 16 memorialize that ruling. 17 DISCUSSION 18 “A mistrial is not to be declared unless (1) there is a “manifest necessity” for the 19 discharge of the original proceedings, or (2) “the ends of public justice” would otherwise 20 be defeated. Arnold v. McCarthy, 566 F.2d 1377, 1386 (9th Cir. 1978). See also United 21 States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824). See also Renteria v. Adams 526 Fed. Appx 724 (9th 22 Cir. 2013). According to the 9th Circuit, “[c]ourts have isolated a number of significant 23 factors which are useful in determining whether a judge has properly exercised discretion 24 to declare a deadlocked jury.” McCarthy, at 1387 (9th Cir. 1978). These include: “(1) a 25 timely objection by defendant, (2) the jury’s collective opinion that it cannot agree, (3) the 26 length of the deliberations of the jury, (4) the length of the trial, (5) the complexity of the 27 issues presented to the jury, (6) any proper communications which the judge has had with 28 the jury, and (7) the effects of possible exhaustion and the impact which coercion of further 29 deliberations might have on the verdict.” Id. 30 Thus, “a jury’s inability to reach a decision is the kind of “manifest necessity” that 31 permits the declaration of a mistrial.” Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110, 118 (2009). 32 Further, “the Supreme Court has never required trial courts to consider ‘reasonable

CFO3 15-20, People of Guam v. Michael Jason Mendiola Sablan. Page 2 of 3 Decision and Order (Re: Defendant’s Oral Motion for Mistrial). 1 alternatives’ to discharging a genuinely deadlocked jury. . . . An impasse is an impasse... 2 [and] the only conceivable alternatives present serious risk of coercing jurors.” Harrison v. 3 Gillespie, 636 F.3d 472, 488 (9th Cir. 2011). 4 Here, the Defendant gave timely objections. Defendant objected once during the 5 trial; seeking a mistrial during the testimony of Elizabeth Webb. Defendant objected again, 6 and sought a mistrial before the Allen Charge instruction was read to the jury. Finally, 7 Defendant sought a mistrial which was granted as the subject of this order. Next, the jury 8 indicated that it could not agree to a verdict. The jury sent two notes stating their inability 9 to reach a verdict. See Juror Note 2; Juror Note 6. Likewise, the foreperson indicated on 10 two separate occasions, that the jury was unable to come to a unanimous verdict. 11 Next, the jury has been deliberating for four days while the trial itself only lasted 12 four days. Relatedly, the issues in the trial were not overly complex and ultimately 13 involved primarily the determination of the credibility of the witnesses. Finally, the risk of 14 possible exhaustions of and coercion was great. At least one juror indicated that they may 15 change their mind solely on a desire to stop deliberating and go back to work. $çç Juror 16 Note 2. 17 Thus, on the balance of factors, the Court hereby finds that the jury was in deadlock 18 and a mistrial was appropriate. ~ Renico v. Lett 559 U.S. 766 (2010) (“the judge. . . had 19 not abused her discretion in declaring the mistrial, observing that the jury had deliberated a 20 sufficient amount of time following a short, noncomplex trial; that the jury had sent several 21 notes. . . and that the foreperson had stated that the jury could not reach a verdict.”) 22 23 CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant’s Oral 25 Motion for Mistrial. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that a mistrial be declared. 26 ) / 27 SO ORDERED this____________ 28 SERVICE VIA E.~MAL I ac~nW~ed9e that an electronic 29 cà~ of The onghial was e~mailed to:

HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Date: ~~~~inie: ~tL~p~’ Judge, Superior Court of Guam

DèpütyCIerk,l~~riOr Court of Guam

CF0315-20, People of Guam v. Michael Jason Mendiola Sablan. Page 3 of 3 Decision and Order (Re: Defendant’s Oral Motion for Mistrial).