People v. Salas

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: May 31, 2012
• Docket: CM1132-11
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) 4 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM1l32-11 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER ROLAND QUENGA SALAS, ) 6 ) 7 Defendant. )

8 INTRODUCTION 9 This matter came before the Honorable Judge James L. Canto II on the Defendant' 10 motion to dismiss, filed February 24, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on March 19, 2012 II Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins appeared on behalf of the Government an 12 Assistant Public Defender Mikaela J. Silkey represented the Defendant. Having considered th 13 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the followin 14 Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On November 9, 2011, the Government filed a complaint to charge the Defendant wit 17 misdemeanor government obstruction in violation of9 GCA § 55.45. A declaration appended t 18 the complaint alleges that the Defendant was disruptive and disobedient to a police officer durin 19 a response to a disturbance call. 20 On December 14, 2011 and January 4, 2012, the Defendant was arraigned without 21 recorded finding of probable cause to believe that an offense was committed. On February 24 22 2012, the Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss the complaint because the allegation 0 23 disruption and disobedience is insufficient cause to believe that he physically interfered 0 24 obstructed governmental function in violation of9 GCA § 55.45. 25 On March 5, 2012, the Government filed an opposition with a statement by the polic 26 officer who responded to the disturbance call. The officer states that the Defendant appro ache 27 him after he asked a visibly crying individual what was wrong, that the Defendant told him t 28 leave in a loud and aggressive manner, and that the Defendant placed himself between the office

ORIGINAL Page 1 of3 and another potentially injured individual within the officer's view. (Opposition, Exhibit "1" 2 Mar. 5, 2012.) The Defendant was arrested after the officer, "informed [him] that he wa 3 obstructing [the] duties [of] a police officer, [and he] replied 'and what!' in a loud aggressiv 4 tone." /d. at 2. 5 At oral argument, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 8 GCA § 6 65.15 and 65.45. 7 DISCUSSION 8 Title 8 GCA § 65.15(b) provides that an objection based upon a defect in the complaint 9 "shall be raised prior to trial." Notwithstanding a defect raised by objection, "the court on it 10 own motion may dismiss a prosecution pursuant to [9 GCA] § 7.67." 8 GCA § 80.70(c) 11 Section 7.67(b) provides that, 12 The court shall dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it 13 finds that the defendant's conduct ... [d]id not actually cause of threaten the harm 14 or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction. 15 9 GCA § 7.67(b). 16 In order to consider dismissal under 9 GCA § 7.67(b) and de minimis grounds, the Co 17 should assume all factual allegations as true and determine whether the alleged conduct expose 18 society to a risk of harm sufficient to warrant conviction. People v. Perez, 2004 Guam 4 ~~ 16 19 21. The risk of harm to society is determined by examining: 1) the attendant circumstances; 2 20 the existence of contraband; 3) the value of property involved; 4) the use or threat of violence' 21 and 5) the use of weapons. Id. at ~ 12 (citing State v. Zarrilli, 523 A.2d 284, 288 (N.J. Super. Ct 22 Law Div. 1987)). 23 In this case, the Defendant objects to the complaint on the basis that it contains n 24 probable cause to believe that he physically interfered or obstructed with government function 25 The Government responds with a statement that the Defendant placed himself physicall 26 between a police officer and a potentially injured person. Even if the Magistrate Judge found th 27 probable cause necessary to arraign the Defendant, the Court may dismiss the offense as d 28 minimis pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.70(c) and 9 GCA § 7.67(b).

OR , Gf ~I A Page 2 of3 Guam law defines the offense of government obstruction as an obstruction made, "b 2 force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach of official duty, or any other unlawfu 3 act." 9 GCA § 55.45. Assuming all factual allegations in this matter to be true, the Defendan 4 stood in front of the officer and aggressively told him to leave before he was placed under arrest. 5 There is no suggestion that the Defendant used force, violence or other physical act to prevent 6 approach towards the individual behind him and there is no suggestion that his conduct actuall 7 prevented an approach. The Defendant was merely a stationary obstacle and verbal disruption t 8 the officer's presence. Furthermore, the Defendant's conduct poses a low risk of harm to societ 9 because it did not involve contraband, property, violence or weapons. See Perez 2004 Guam 4 10 In consideration of these and all other attendant circumstances, the Court finds that th 11 Defendant's conduct exposed society to a risk of harm too trivial to warrant the condemnation 0 12 conviction. For this reason, the prosecution shall be dismissed pursuant to 9 GCA § 7.67(b). 13 III

14 III 15 III 16 CONCLUSION 17 Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED an 18 the complaint is further DISMISSED as de minimis pursuant to 9 GCA § 7.67(b). 19

20 SO ORDERED this~day of May, 2012. 21

23 HONORABLE JAMES L. CANTO II Judge Superior Court of Guam 24

ORIG/NA Page 3 of3