People v. Sablan

Opinion

F\LED SUPERlOR COURT

OFGUAM

1 2022 FEB 10 IM 10= 52 2 CLERKOFCOURT 3 E-,Y!____.

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

PEOPLE OF GUAM, 6

Plaintiff, Case No. CF0211-20 7

8 vs.

DECISION AND ORDER

9 (Defendant Mark Francis Aguigui Sablan's MARK FRANCIS AGUIGUI SABLAN, Motion for Reconsideration)

10 Defendant.

11

12 INTRODUCTION

13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on December 7, 2021 , 14

following further proceedings on Defendant Mark Francis Aguigui Sablan's Motion for 15

16 Reconsideration of Decision and Order Denying Motion in Limine to Admit Into Evidence

17 Judgment of Conviction of Co-Occupant of Vehicle ("Motion for Reconsideration"), filed on

18 August 17, 2021. Attorney Terry Timblin appeared for Mark Francis Aguigui Sablan 19 ("Defendant"). Assistant Attorney General Jeremiah Luther appeared for the People of Guam 20 ("People"). Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, the Court hereby 21 DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

22 BACKGROUND

23 The factual background of this matter was previously set out by the Court in a Decision 24

25 and Order issued on August 2, 2021. The following explains the relevant history of the instant

26 case that led to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

27

Page1 of 8

1 Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Michael Joseph Cruz Guzman

2 ("Guzman") when Guam Police Department ("GPD") officers conducted a traffic stop on the 3 vehicle. Mag. Complaint, Apr. 20, 2020. The officers obtained consent, searched the vehicle, 4 and found methamphetamine. Id. Defendant was charged with Possession of a Schedule II 5 Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony). Id. According to Defendant, Guzman was 6 7 never charged with any crime and appears on the People's witness list for Defendant's trial.

8 Def. Mark Francis Aguigui Sablan's Mot. in Limine to Admit Into Evidence J. of Conviction

9 of Co-Occupant of Vehicle (hereinafter "Mot. in Liming"), at 3 Mar. 16, 2021. Defendant filed

10 a Motion in Limine to admit into evidence a judgment of conviction in Superior Court

11 Criminal Case No. CF0030-05, People v. Michael Joseph Cruz Guzman, to show Guzman has 12 . . . » . . .

a poor convlctlon for Possesslon of a Schedule II Controlled Substance. Mot. in Llmlne. The 13 People filed an opposition. People's Reply to Def.'s Mot. in Limine to Admit Into Evidence J.

14 of Conviction of Co-Occupant of the Vehicle, Apr. 16, 2021. Defendant filed a reply to the 15 16 People's opposition. Def. Mark Francis Aguigui Sablan's Reply to Gov 't Opp'n. to Mot. in

17 Limine to Admit into Evidence J. of Conviction of Co-Occupant of Vehicle (hereinafter

18 "Reply to Gov 't. Opp'n. to Mot. in Liming" at 2-3).

19 The Court issued a Decision and Order denying Defendant's Motion in Limine on

20 August 2, 2021. Dec. and Order Re: Def.'s Mot. in Liming (hereinafter "Dec. and Order," 21 Aug. 2, 2021. On August 17, 2021, Defendant filed the instant motion. Def. Mark Francis 22 Aguigui Sablan's Mot. for Recons. of Dec. and Order Def.'s Mot. in Liming to Admit into 23 Evidence J. of Conviction of Co-Occupant of Vehicle (hereinafter "Mot. for Recons."), Aug.

24 17, 2021. The People filed an opposition. (People's Opp'n. to Mot. for Recons., Aug. 25, 25

26 2021. Defendant filed a reply. Def. Mark Francis Aguigui Sablan's Reply to Opp'n. to Mot.

27 for Recons. of Dec. and Order Def.'s Mot. in Liming to Admit into Evidence J. of Conviction

27

1 of Co-Occupant ofVehicle (hereinafter "De£'s Reply to Opp'n."), Aug. 31, 2021. The Court

2 took the motion under advisement on December 7, 2021. Minute Entry, Dee. 7, 2021 . 3 DISCUSSION

4 The Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam provide that a party shall only make a 5 motion for reconsideration if one of the following applies: "(l) a material difference in fact or 6 7 law from that presented to the court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable

8 diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of

9 such decision, or (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occumlng after the

10 time of such decision, or (3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts

11 presented to the court before such decision." CVR 7.1(i). This rule also prohibits parties from 12 . u . . . . .

repeating any oral or written argument in a motlon for reconslderatlon that was already made in 13 the original motion. Id.

14 Defendant argued in his initial Motion in Limine that Guzman's conviction is 15 admissible under "reverse" Guam Rules of Evidence ("GRE") 404(b). Reply to Gov 't. Opp'n.

16

17 to Mot. in Limine at 2-3. Character evidence is generally not admissible for the purpose of

18 proving action in conformity with an action taken on another occasion. GRE 404(a). GRE

19 404(b) permits the Court to admit evidence of other crimes provided it is used for a purpose

20 other than to show the person acted in conformity with the other crimes. The evidence is 21 admissible to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or the 22 absence of mistake or accident. GRE 404(b). Under the "reverse" theory of 404(b), a 23 Defendant may introduce prior bad acts that fit within the 404(b) exception for defensive 24 25 purposes. United States v. Reed, 259 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2001). The defendant uses

26 404(b) evidence against another person as exculpatory evidence instead of the prosecutor using 1 404(b) evidence against the defendant. United States v. Lucan, 357 F.3d 599, 606 (6th Cir.

2 2004). 3 Defendant argues that "[t]he Court committed clear error by misstating the facts" when 4 the Court stated in its Decision and Order that Defendant-not Guzman-appeared high to the 5 officers during the traffic stop. Mot. for Recons. at 2. Defendant further argues the Court 6 "committed clear error" by applying GRE 609, when Defendant explicitly attempted to admit 7

8 the conviction under GRE 404(b). Id. Lastly, Defendant argues that whether or not Guzman is

9 the person being prosecuted is not significant to whether the Court can admit Guzman's

10 conviction. Id. The People assert that Defendant has not presented anything new in the motion

11 and instead restates his initial arguments "without any novel or different content." People's 12 . .

Opp'n. to Mot. for Recons. at 2. Consequently, the People assert that Defendant's motion is 13 barred by CVR 7.1(i). Id. at 2-3 .

14 A. Defendant's motion does not comply with the requirements of CVR 7.1 because 15 there was no misstatement of a material fact. 16 The Court's Decision and Order states "[t]he Officers allegedly observed that 17 Defendant 'displayed indicators of a person under the influence of an illegal substance."' Dec.

18 and Order at 2. Defendant's Motion in Limine states "Officer Pangelinan observed that 19 Guzman 'displayed indicators of a person under the influence of an illicit substance."' Mot. in 20 Limine at 2. As there is a discrepancy between the facts contained in the Defendant's Motion 21

22 in Limine and those contained in the Decision and Order, the Court finds that the Decision and

23 Order incorrectly described Defendant-instead of Guzman-as the occupant in the vehicle

24 who appeared high. 25 However, this fact is not a material fact. Black's Law Dictionary defines a material 26 . . . . .

fact as "a fact that makes a chfference in the result to be reached in a green case." Replevm, 1 Black's Law Dictionary (10 ed. 2014). Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has defined

2 a material fact as a fact that that may affect the outcome of a case. See Anderson v. Liberty 3 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Whether it was Defendant or Guzman who was high 4 did not affect the Court's legal analysis in determining if Guzman's prior conviction satisfied 5 the requirements of GRE 404(b). The Court does not discuss Defendant appearing high in its 6 7 analysis anywhere in the Decision and Order. The only time the Court mentions this fact is in

8 the background section of the case. Dec. and Order at 2. The Court held that the conviction

9 was inadmissible because it did not meet the requirements of the intent exception. Id. at 4~5.

10 The Court found the conviction met the requirements of the identity exception, and a

11 conviction is too generic to be admissible under that exception. Id. at 4~5. Accordingly, while 12 . . . .

there was an error in the Court's statement of the facts, it made no difference in the outcome of 13 the motion. As the Defendant fails to identify a misstatement of a material fact, CVR 7. 1 14 prohibits reconsideration of Defendant's Motion in Liming.

15 B. Defendant's motion does not comply with the requirements of CVR 7.1 because he 16 repeats arguments that were made ill his initial motion.

17 Additionally, Defendant fails to make any arguments that he did not make in his 18 original motion. Thus, the People are correct that defendant's motion does not meet the 19 standards of CVR 7.1. Defendant argues that he could not "argue that the facts had been 20 misstated until the Decision and Order had been issued." Def.'s Reply to Opp'n. at 1. While 21

22 that statement is accurate, as discussed above, the misstated fact was not material to the Court's

23 analysis and therefore is not a basis for reconsideration.

24 The Defendant also argues that "it could not have been anticipated that the Court would

25 opine on the inapplicability of Evidence Rule 609 when SABLAN made it clear that he was 26 . . .. . . ..

not seeking to invoke it in the first place." Id. At no polnt in the Declslon and Order does the 27

Page S of 8

1 Court state Defendant is attempting to admit the conviction under GRE 609(b). Rather, the

2 Court noted that Guzman's conviction is inadmissible under GRE 609(b) because it is over ten 3 years old. Dec. and Order at 2. The Court then acknowledged that Defendant did not intend to 4 admit the conviction under GRE 609(b) but under GRE 404(b). Id. Moreover, Defendant 5 explicitly made this argument in his initial Motion in Liming, where he stated "SABLAN does 6 7 not seek to use the conviction for impeachment of Guzman pursuant to Evidence Rule 609 as

8 the 10 year limit has expired." Mot. in Limine at 4. Consequently, CVR 7.1 prohibits the

9 Court firm reconsidering this argument.

10 Defendant further argues that he could not anticipate "... that the Court would cite to

11 cases involving the identity exception when SABLAN was not seeking to invoke the identity 12 . . u» exceptlon." Def.'s Reply to Opp'n. at 1. The Court chsagrees. Defendant could antlclpate that 13 the Court would look at the entire GRE 404(b) exception-as that is the exception Defendant is 14 attempting to invoke-when evaluating the issue. The Court stated in its Decision and Order 15 16 that while Defendant argued that he was using the conviction to prove intent, in actuality, he

17 was using the conviction to prove identity. Dec. and Order at 3. The Court reasoned that

18 arguing Guzman, not Defendant, possessed the methamphetamine was a question of identity of

19 the possessor and not a question of Guzman's intent. Id. at 3-4. Defendant does not state facts

20 or law-as CVR 7.1 requires-that were unknown to Defendant at the time of the Decision 21 and Order, or that the Court failed to consider. Instead, Defendant reiterates the arguments he 22 made in his initial Motion in Liming because he disagrees with the Court's analysis. Absent 23 new law or material facts the Court failed to consider, Defendant has no basis for 24 2 reconsideration. 5 Defendant argues that he could not anticipate "...that the Court would conclude that 26

27 the proffered evidence was for the purpose of proving SABLAN's intent rather than Guzman's

27

1 intent." Def.'s Reply to Opp'n. at 2. As Defendant is the accused in this case, he should have

2 been able to anticipate that the Court would look to his intent when evaluating whether the 3 conviction met the requirements of GRE 404(b). The Court acknowledges that Defendant 4 emphasized the conviction was to prove Guzman's intent, not Defendant's intent. However, 5 Defendant fails to argue any new facts or law pertaining to proving Guzman's intent, nor does 6 7 he identify material facts the Court failed to consider. Instead, Defendant reiterates why the

conviction proves Guzman's intent, as stated in his initial Motion in Limine, and cites the same 8

9 case law. Without any new arguments, Defendant's disaccord with the Court's analysis is not

10 sufficient to grant reconsideration of Defendant's Motion in Limine.

11 Finally, Defendant argues that "... it could not be anticipated that the Court discuss 12 . . . . . . . . . -

preJudlce wlthout speclfylng who was being prejudiced." Id. That statement is inaccurate, the 13 Court does not discuss prejudice in its Decision and Order. The Court does note that any 14 evidence admitted under GRE 404(b)-like all evidence-is subject to GRE 403 limitations.

15 16 Dec. and Order at 4. Even so, the Court never states those limitations apply here, and it never

17 states the conviction is prejudicial. Id. Therefore, this argument does not satisfy the

18 requirements of CVR 7.1 .

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Consideration and

holds that Guzman's poor convlctlon is 1nadm1ss1b1e.

4

5 F58 \ 0 2022 SO ORDERED, this day of 2022.

6

7

8 K

9 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 10 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL l acknowledge that an electronic 22 copy of the original was e-mailed to:

As, r T.-n~.b[-'»~

23

24 Date: l \ . D5 ¢w

25 G#-wr

Deputy Clem period Court of Guam