FILED ELEI
CLERK CLERKQFOFcf>@J§=aT
COURT
1 zn2u Ausf 4lit PH 202~ AUG PM 3: 59
2 SUPERIOR COURT SUFEFHUP; comm'
3 DF GUAM OF3L3.5*=M
4
1
5
6 IN THE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM GUAM
7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, )) CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASECASE NO. CM0125-23 8 ) GPD GPD Report NO. 23-09184
Report NO. 23-09184
))
9 vs. vs. )
10 )) DECISION AND ORDER PAUL JAMES SALGADO, )) RE. DEFENDANT'S DEFENDANT'S MOTION
MOTION TO
11 11 DOB:
DOB: 05/18/1968 05/18/1968 ) DISMISS 12 12 ))
Defendant. )
13 1 _______________ ))
14 14 I.
1. ;NTR0DUCT10N
INTRODUCTION
15 15 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Maria T. Cenzon This Cenzon on on February
February 29, 2024,
2024, for
16 16 a hearing hearing on Defendant DefendantPaul
PaulJames
JamesSalgado's
Salgado's("Defendant")
("Defendant") Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss Complaint
Complaint Due
117
18 to the to De Minimis the De Minims Nature of the Nature of the Alleged
Alleged Offense
Offense (the
(the "Motion").
"Motion").Present
Presentat
at the
the hearing
hearing were
were
18
19 19 Defendant, person, with Defendant, in person, with counsel counsel Assistant PublicDefender AlternatePublic
AssistantAlternate ThereseDunphy DefenderTherese via Duchy via
20 Zoom, Zoom, and AssistantAttorney and Assistant Attorney General General Christine
ChristineTenorio
Tenorio via
via Zoom
Zoom for the
the People
People of Guam ("the
("the
21 People"). People").The TheCourt
CourtDENIED
DENIEDthe
theMotion
Motionfrom
fromthe
thebench
benchand
andnow
nowissues
issues this
this Decision
Decisionand
and Order
22 22 memorializing its its ruling.
23
24 II. 11. BACKGR0U_NP
BACKGROUND
24
25 25 Defendant is charged chargedwith
withViolation
Violation of
of a Court
Court Order
Order (As
(As a Misdemeanor)
Misdemeanor) in violation violation
26 26 off of 9GCA GCA§ §30.40(a)
30.40(a) as follows:
as follows:
27 27
28 28 People People v.
v. Salgado
Criminal Case No. Criminal Case No. CM0125-23 Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Page 1 l of
of9
On or about
about April 5, 2023,
2023, in Guam,PAUL
in Guam, PAUL JAMES SALGADO (aka (aka Paul Ignacio Ignacio
1 Salgado) did commit the Salgado) the offense offense of
of Violation
Violation ofofaa Court
Court Order
Order (As
(As aa Misdemeanor), in
2 that he that he knowingly
knowingly violated
violated aa court
court order filed
filed on
on July
July 26,
26, 2001,
2001, in the Superior Court Court ofof
Guam CaseCase No. DM0449-01, DM0449-0J, enjoining
enjoining the
the Defendant
Defendant from
from threatening,
threatening, abusing,
abusing,
3 annoying, harassing molesting, annoying, harassingor or disturbing disturbingthethepeace
peaceand
andphysical
physicalwell-being of Ana well-beingof Ana
Ignacio Salvado, or from coming within 1000 1000 feet of Ana feet of Ignacio Salgado, Ana Ignacio Salgado, in in violation
violation
4 off of 9GCA
GCA§§30.40(a).
30.40(a).
5 Magistrate's Compl.
Comal. (April
(April 7,
7, 2023).
6
With respect to the facts which With which constitute the basis for the Charge, the Declaration in 7
8 support of the support of the Complaint Complaintyields
yieldsthe
thefollowing:
following:
9 On On or about April 5, 5, 2023 at approximately 10:10 p.m., GPD 10: p.m., GPD Officers Officers responded
responded to a
10 Violation ViolationofofCourt
CourtOrder
Order complaint
complaint at
at aa residence in Dededo. At At the location, the Officers Officers met with an anelderly elderlyfemale
femaleindividual,
individual,AnaAnal Salgado("Victim")
I Salgado ("Victim") who who informed
informed
11 1 the Officers Officers that
that she
she has
has a permanent
permanentrestraining
restraining order
order (DM0449-01)
(DM0449-01) against
against her son,
later identified as PAUL J. SALGADO identified as SALGADO ("Defendant").
("Defendant"). Victim
Victimprovided
provided aa copy of
of the
12 12 permanent restraining order, permanent restraining order, which which orders Defendant to to stay stay away
away from and not come
13 l,000' feet
within 1,000' feet of
ofVictim,
Victim,residence
residence ofofVictim,
Victim, or
or the
the place of employment
employment of of Victim,
Victim,
permanently. This order
order was
was signed
signed on
on July
July 26,
26, 2011
2011 by the Honorable JudgeJudge Katherine 14 14 A. Maraman.
ran.
15 Victim Victimstated
stated that
that Defendant and his brother, brother, Eddie, an'ived
arrived at her residence. Eddie was 16 16 trying to to go
go into
into his
his residence
residence (extension
(extension near
near main
main house)
house) however, the key was no worldng, working, Defendant
Defendant and Eddie started started yelling
yelling out of
ofanger.
anger. Victim
Victimstated
stated that
that Defendant
17 17 has knowledge knowledge of ofthe
the restraining order against him.
18 18 Acid AffidofofProbable ProbableCause
Cause (April
(April 7,
7, 2023).
19 19 On On June 26,2023,
June 26, 2023,Defendant
Defendantfiled
filedaaMotion
MotiontotoDismiss
DismissDue
DuetotoCivil
Civil Compromise.
Compromise.After
After
20 20 taking the motion motion under advisement,
advisement, the Court issued issued its
its Decision
Decision and Order,
Order, on October 24,
21
22 22 2023, denying Defendant's motion, determining 2023, denying determining that that"the
"the Defendant's
Defendant's offense is not
23 23 coextensive coextensive with with the
the civil
civilremedy
remedyand
and such
such offense
offense does
does not
not meet
meet the threshold for possible 24 4 apphcatlon application of 88 GCA GCA§§80.90."
80.90."See
SeeOrder
Orderre.
re.Dlsmlssal
DismissalDue
Dueto
toC1v1l Compromlse.
Civil Compromise.
25 In In his present Motion,
Motion,Defendant
Defendantargues
arguesthat
thatattendant
attendant circumstances
circumstances surrounding surrounding the
26 26
27 alleged alleged conduct conduct support dismissal of the criminal case, support a dismissal case, and harm or and the harm or evil
evil threatened
threatened or
27
28 People v. Salgado
Criminal Case CMOl25-23 Case No. CM0125-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to Dismiss
Page Page 2 of
of9
criminal judgment
caused is "too trivial to warrant a criminal conviction." See of conviction."
judgment of Mot. at See Mot. 3-4. In
at 3-4. support
In support
1
22 of his Motion, Defendant filed three Exhibits: (1) a Declaration of Crime of Victim, signed on Crime Victim,
33 Victim does the Victim
that the
stating that
April 7, 2023, stating of the Attorney General to pursue does not want the Office of 4 . . I . . ¢ | . .
this criminal thls case,(2)
cr1m1na1case; DeclaratlonRe.
(2)a aDeclaration Civil Compromise, Re.Civil on June signed on
Compromlse, slgned 16, 2023, June 16, stating
2023, stating
5 that the to waive prosecution of the criminal complaint filed against Defendant;
the Victim agrees to Defendant, 6 7 P.L. 31-109.
and (3) a copy of P.L. Based on 31-109. Based the Motion, on the Defendant now moves this Court to enter Motion, Defendant
7
88 an Order Dismissing the Magistrate's Complaint.
9 order is not court order
ofaa court
violation of
thataa violation
arguingthat
Motion,arguing
Defendant'sMotion,
The People oppose Defendant's 10 .u . . . » . . .
trlvlal, further, "the trivial; further, permanent restraining "the permanent order is restralnmg order an important is an remedy available Importantremedy to victims,"
avallable to vlctlms,"
11 11 conduct warrant
and the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct of the Motion. See warrant denial of
12 12
13 13 People's Opp'n People's Mot. atat 3, Opp'nMot. (Feb. 7, 2024).
3, (Feb.
14 14 III.
Ill. DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
15 15 A. The
The Defendant's alleged conduct warrants Defendant's alleged prosecution.
warrants prosecution.
16 16 In determining whether Defendant's acts are de Defendant's acts minims under De minimis under 9 GCA
GCA §§ 30.40(a)(3),
30.40(a)(3), the
17 17 18 Court first turns Court first turns to to the
the language
language of
of the
the statute.
statute. 9 GCA § 30.40(a)(3) provides, in in relevant
relevant part,
part, as
as
18
19 19 follows:
follows:
20 20 (a)) Any Any knowing of any t ion of
violation
knowing viola of tthe ny of following cou he following der s shallll bee a court orders
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment misdemeanor of no less than forty-eight (48) hours imprisonment ono less than forty-eight (48)
21 and not more than one (1) year, and by a fine of not more than One Thousand 22 22 Dollars:
Dollarsl
23 order requiring a person to stay away from the residence, dwelling, (3) an order
school, day care center, place care center, any other place of employment, or any specified other specified
24 24 place or from a specified five hundred specified person, within live (500') feet hundred (500') of the feet of
25 specified place or specified person.
26 26 (emphasis added). 27 27
28 28 People People v.
v. Salgado
Salgado
Criminal Case No. CM0125-23 Decision Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss
Page Page 3 of9
The Defendant argues that Defendant argues the nature that the ofthe
nature of conductand
theconduct theattendant andthe circumstances attendant circumstances
1
2 2 criminal charges the criminal
leading to the support a dismissal of charges support the criminal ofthe case. Defendant criminal case. submits that, Defendant submits
3 3 allegesaaViolation chargealleges
thecharge ofthe
natureof
the nature
although the of aa Court Violation of coming within Court Order by coming 1,000 within 1,000
4 . . I . .
2023,he
April5,5,2023, onApril
residenceon
Victim'sresidence
the Vlctlm's ofthe
feet of didnot hedid speak or
notspeak make any
or make attempt to
any attempt contact
to contact
5 the Victim. at3.
Mot.at
Victim. Mot. Additionally,the 3. Additionally, Defendantalso theDefendant submitsthat alsosubmits he was
that he with his
was with brother the
his brother
6 7 night of violationalleged violation
of the alleged policereport the police
-. the silentas reportisissilent to whether as to Defendant accompanied whether the Defendant
7
8 to the residence his brother to remained in residence or remained the vehicle.
in the Further, the Id. Further,
vehicle. Id Defendant argues the Defendant that a argues that
9 9 of conviction judgment of does nothing to protect the Victim, conviction does stated has stated
Victimhas
the Victim
when the
especially when
Victim, especially
10 10 she does not seek prosecution and that that she she has that she reconciled with has reconciled the Defendant.
with the See Exhibits Defendant. See Exhibits
111
A and Mot.The and BB ofofMot. Defendantalso TheDefendant arguesthat alsoargues the Protective thatthe Order isis 22 ProtectiveOrder years-old, and 22 years-old, the
and the
12 12
13 13 Defendant has honoredthe has honored Order,such the Order, avoiding attendance suchasasavoiding familyfunctions.
attendanceatatfamily Mot.Hr'g.
functions.Mot. Hr'g.
14 14 FTR FTRat at 2:03 :15PM.
2:03:15 PM. The People argue otherwise - restraining orders are granted restraining orders for the granted for safety of the safety of
15 15 the victim victim and
and serve
serve as
as aa remedy for those
remedy for in fear those in anotherindividual, fearofofanother notwithstanding the individual,notwithstanding 16 16 Victim's Victim's desires drop the charges.
desires to drop SeePeople's charges.See Opp'n Mot.
People's Opp'n
17 17 the People. Indeed, courts grant The Court agrees with the protective orders grantprotective for the orders for safety of the safety of
18 18
19 19 victims. As As such,
such, Defendant Restraining Order imposed by him for the must obey the Permanent Restraining Defendant must
20 20 safety of ofthe Victim.
Victim. The
ThePermanent
Permanent Restraining contains language notifying Order contains
Restraining Order the Defendant notifying the
21 of of the consequencesfor the consequences forviolating violating Order:
thethe "VIOLATION
Order: OFTHIS
"VIOLATIONOF ORDERMAY THISORDER MAY SUBJECT
22 YOU TO PUNISHMENT UNDER UNDER 99 GCA
GCA 30.40,
30.40, PUNISHABLE FINE OF BYAAFINE
PUNISHABLE BY NOT MORE OF NOT
23 23
24 THAN ONE THAN ONE THOUSAND THOUSANDDOLLARS ORBY ($1,000) OR
DOLLARS(251,000) IMPRISONMENTNOT BYIMPRISONMENT MORETHAN NOT MORE THAN
24
25 25 ONE ONE (1)
(1) YEAR
YEAR..."
...See Permanent
" See Order(July RestrainingOrder
PermanentRestraining 26, 2001).
(July26, Victim told police 2001). The Victim
26 26 he is aware submits that he
Defendant submits
and the Defendant
Order, and
that the Defendant knew about the Restraining Order, 27 27 of ofthe the Order Order and
and has honored
honored it for the last 22 years. Court is years. The Court not persuaded by the Defendant's is not Defendant'
28 28 People v.
v. Salgado
Salgado
Criminal Case No.
No. CMOl25-23
CM0125-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re.
Re. Defendant's Motion
Motion to Dismiss
Page Page4 of9 ambiguous as to whether the Defendant remained in the car assertion that the police report was ambiguous 1
2 certainly, the Defendant may try this issue before a jury or followed his brother to the residence -.- certainly,
3 further unpersuaded Court is further
as a defense to the allegations against him. The Court by the age of the unpersuaded by
4 I I . . • Protective Order, Protectlve considering the Order, conslderlng Court at the Court the time
at the found cause
time found to Issue cause to the issue such an order for the 5 protection of the protection of Victim. Indeed, the Victim. Defendant wishes to find Indeed, if the Defendant alternate relief from the find alternate
6 7 Order, there Protective Order, Protective may well there may avenues available to the Defendant, well be avenues outside the Defendant, which is outside 7
88 jurisdiction purview of and purview
jurisdiction and sufficient showing to warrant of this Court. The Court finds that there is a sufficient
99 the Victim's through the
prosecution through prosecution statement to Victim's statement the arrival at the
Defendant's animal
about the Defendant's
police about to police
10 .
corroboration ofofthat
residence, and the granddaughter's corroboration statement.
that statement.
11 B. B. Defendant's
Defendant's alleged
alleged acts
acts are not De minims under de minimis under 99 GCA
GCA §§7.67.
7.67.
12
13 13 We then tum the acts in which the Defendant is alleged to have turn to the question of whether the
14 14 De minim engaged are de minimsis under GCA §7.67.
under 99 GCA § Court finds the Court If the If finds these
these acts
acts are Deminim
are de minims
is under
15 15 this statute, then the statute, then v. Perez, may dismiss the charges against the Defendant. See People v.
the court may Perez, 16 2004 Guam 4. Section 7.67 provides as follows:
follows:
17 17 99 GCA
GCA §§ 7.67. Appropriateness of 7.67. Appropriateness of Prosecution.
Prosecution.
18 18
19 19 The court shall shall dismiss
dismiss a prosecution
prosecution if, the regard to the nature of the if, having regard
conduct charged to conduct charged to constitute constitute an an offense offenseand and the nature of the the nature attendant the attendant
20 20 circumstances, itit finds finds that
that the conduct:
the defendant's conduct:
21 (a) Was within
within aa customary
customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negated by the license or
22 22 inconsistent with the purpose of the person whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent offense;
law defining the offense, 23 23 sought to be prevented by (b) Did not actually cause or threaten the harm of evil sought 24 24 the law defining
defining the offense or did so to to an
an extent
extent too
too trivial
trivial to warrant the
to warrant
25 condemnation, condemnation; or
26 26 (c) Presents such c) Presents such other
other extenuations that it cannot extenuations that cannot reasonably regarded as reasonably be regarded
27 27 envisaged envisaged by the Legislature Legislature in forbidding court shall not offense. The court
forbidding the offense.
28 People People v.
v. Salgado
Salgado
Criminal Case No.
No. CM0125-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re.
Re. Defendant's Motion
Motion to Dismiss
Dismiss
Page 5 of9
of
dismiss a prosecution under this Subsection without filing a written statement 1 of its reasons. of reasons.
2 99 GCA GCA §§ 7.67 (emphasis added)(referred to herein as 7.67 (emphasis as the "de minims statute").
"De minimis
3
de minimis
The De directs the trial minims statute directs to dismiss a prosecution if it finds that the trial court to
4
5 defendant's conduct falls defendant's conduct within at falls within least one at least of the
one of three distinct the three circumstances. Perez distinct circumstances. Jrlr 6-9.
Perez at W
6 as true and determine allegations as
In considering this question, the Court should assume all factual allegations 7 whether the alleged conduct exposes society to a risk of harm sufficient to warrant conviction. Id.
Id.
8 Jr 16. at H' Moreover,the 16.Moreover, Court isis tasked theCourt with "focusing tasked with ective factors objective
"focusing on obi directly related to the factors directly
9
10 Defendant's and, in particular, the consequences conduct and,
Defendant's conduct for the consequences for societal interests the societal involved." Id.
interestsinvolved." Id.
111 at JrII' 12, 12, citing
citing to State Zarrilli, 523 A. 2d 284 State v.v.Zarrilli, (N.J. Super.
284 (N.J. Ct.Law
Super.Ct. Div. 19870, LawDiv. ajf'd, 532 A.2d 19870, aff'd, A.2d
12 12 Ct. App. Div. 1987).
1131 (N.J. Super Ct.
13 13 The The Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme Court
Court adopted
adopted the
theNew
NewJersey
Jerseycou1*£'s guidance in Zarrilli, court's guidance Zarrilli, which 14 in determining
eloquently defined the question that the Guam trial courts should answer in detemiining whether 15
16 an offense is "truly trivial":
17 17 The protection to which society is entitled is provided by a dismissal only when the offense offense is truly
truly 'trivial.' Consequently, is public Consequently, it is risk that public risk determines what is that determines
18 18 trivial. answered in trivial. The one question to be asked and answered in response de minimis response to aa De minims
19 19 motion is therefore:
therefore:
20 20 What What is the risk
risk of
ofharm
harm to
to which
which society
society isis exposed
exposed by defendant's
defendants conduct?
conduct?
21 Id Id at If 12(quoting Jr 12( what factors to consider in answering added). In determining what quoting Zarilli) (emphasis added).
22 this question, the Guam Supreme Court noted consideration of: (a) the circumstances surrounding 23 23
24 24
25
26
27 27
28 People People v. Salgado
v. Salgado
Criminal Case No. Criminal Case No. CM0125-23 CMOl25-23
Decision Decision and
and Order Re.
Re. Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motion to Dismiss
Page 6 ofof9
commission of the commission offense; (b)
of the offense, (b) the
the existence
existence of
ofcontraband,
contraband; (0)
(c) the
the amount
amount and
and value
value of
1
1
2 property involved;
property d) the involved, (d) the use
use or threat
threat of
of violence;
violence, and (e) the use use of weapons.
weapons. Id.
Ids
3 The Court now applies these factors as laid out in Perez and Zarrilli:
Perez and
4 surrounding the
a. Circumstances surrounding the commission commission of
of the
the offense.
offense.
5 The Court
Court must
must first make
make "factual determinations determinations with
with respect
respect to
to the
the conduct
conduct charged
charged
6
and the the attendant attendantcircumstances.
circumstances.Perez at [Iv Perez at Jr 66(citing
(citingState v. Carmichael, 53 P.
State v. P. 3d214, 214,218
218 (Haw.
(Haw.
7
8 Defendant submits 2002)). The Defendant submits that thaton
onthe
thenight
nightof
of the
thealleged
alleged offense,
offense, Defendant
Defendant followed
followed his
9 brother, Eddie, to brother, Eddie, to the the Victim's
Victim's residence,
residence, where the brother also resides.
brother also resides. See See Mot.
Mot. at
at 3.
3. The
JO 10 brother open the entrance brother failed to open entrance to to an extension of the
the house
house where the brother
brother resides.
resides. Id.
Id
11 Thereafter, the Thereafter, the Defendant and Eddie Defendant and Eddie began began yelling
yelling at
at each
each other,
other, where
where around
around this time the
12 12
13 13 Victim Victim most most likely called
called the police to report the theViolation.
Violation. Id.,
Id.; Ajfid
Affid. of
ofProbable
ProbableCause
Cause (Apr. 7,
14 2023). The Defendant's Defendant's assertion
assertion of
ofthe
the ambiguity whether the Defendant followed followed the
the brother to
15 the. residenceororremained the. residence remainedininthe thevehicle
vehicleisisof
of no
no consequence.
consequence.The
TheVictim,
Victim, by
by virtue
virtue of her
her
16 statement to police, statement to police, knew that that the Defendant
Defendant was
was around
around the residence
residence and
and could hear
hear the
17 17 Defendant yelling at the Defendant yelling the brother, brother, prompting
promptingthe
theVictim
Victim to
to notify
notify the
the police.
police. Again, protective 18
19 orders are designed orders are designed to to protect
protect victims
victims from those whom they fear.
fear. Certainly,
Certainly, the
the Defendant's
Defendant's
20 mere presence presence at
atthe
theVictim's
Victim's residence rises
rises to
to a level of
ofconcern
concern that
that goes beyond De minims, de minimis,
21 and the Defendant's and the Defendant's violation violation of that Protective Order Order is not
not De minims. Therefore, the Court de minimis. Court 22 22 finds that that this
this factor
factor weighs
weighs heavily against finding Defendant's Defendant's actions
actions De minims or
de minimis or that there
23 23
24 was little risk of ofharm
harm to society by
by such
such actions.
actions.
24
25
26 26 11 The The Guam Guam Supreme Court noted that Zarrilli excluded from consideration any speculation because "every trivial trivial can be seen as the first step offense can step toward toward serious
serious misconduct.
misconduct. ... Suspicion that future future misconduct
misconduct may occur
occur is
27 27 not a basis basis for
for aa charge
charge of
of present
present misconduct
misconduct inin our
our system
system of
ofjustice." Zarrilli at p.238. The New Jersey court also excluded deterrence because it is aa sentencing sentencing term
term that
that does
does not
not measure
measure triviality.
triviality. Id
Id
28 People v. People v. Salgado
Criminal Case Criminal Case No.
No, CM0125-23
CMOl25-23
Decision and Order Re. Decision and Re. Defendant's Motion Motion to Dismiss
Page 7 of9
of
The existence b. The of contraband.
existence of contraband.
l
2 There is no allegation that contraband allegation that was involved.
contraband was Therefore, the involved. Therefore, Court finds the Court that this finds that
3 in finding the risk of harm factor weighs in to society harm to to be
society to lower where be lower no illicit where no drugs, alcohol, or illicit drugs,
4 other substances were also used.
5 The amount and value of property involved. c. The
6
no allegation of
There is no property damage ofproperty in this case.
damage in neither for nor case. This factor weighs neither 7
8 8 the risk against the of harm risk of to society.
harmto society.
9 d. The of violence.
The use or
or threat of
JO 10 There is no
no allegation of
of violence the threat orthe
violence or violence, apart threat of violence, from the Victim apart from hearing Victim hearing
11 11 the Defendant and his brother yelling Defendant and of anger out of
yelling out after the brother failed to anger after enter his to enter the
his side of the
12 12
13 residence. Indeed, the Permanent Restraining Order against the Permanent Restraining Defendant is designed to prevent the Defendant
14 14 such threatsof such threats ofviolence.
violence. Therefore, the Court finds that thatthis
thisfactor
factorweighs
weighs low in
in finding the
the risk
15 of of harm to society.
16 16 e. The
The use
use of weapons.
17 17 There is no allegation of ofany ofweapons.
use of
any use This factor weapons. This weighs neither factor weighs for nor neither for against
nor against
18 18
19 19 to society.
harm to
the risk of harm society.
20 20 Based upon the theCourt's analysis of
Court's analysis ofthe De herein and considering forth herein
set forth
minims factors set de minimis
21 the the information provided to information provided to it by the Defendant by the in support Defendant in his Motion, support his Court DENIES the Court
Motion, the
22 Defendant's Defendant's Motion.
Motion. The
The Court the following:
finds the
Court Ends following: (1) thatthe (1)that Defendant's alleged the Defendant's conduct does allegedconduct
23 23 24 warrant prosecution, warrant prosecution,and and(2)
(2) that
thatthe
therisk
riskof
of harm
harm to by Defendant's exposed by
to society exposed conduct Defendant's conduct
24
25 25 weighs against the Defendant.
weighs against
26 26
27 27
28 28 People People v.
v. Salgado
Salgado
Criminal Case No. Criminal Case No. CM0125-23 CMOl25-23
Decision Decision and Order Re.
Re. Defendant's Motion
Motion to Dismiss
Page 8 of
of9
Iv. IV. _CLUSION
CONCLUSION
1
2 For the above above reasons, the Defendant's reasons, the Defendant's Motion Complaint Due Dismiss Complaint
Motion to Dismiss to the Due to the De
3 3 Minims Minimis Nature of the Nature of the Alleged
Alleged Offense
Offense is
is DENIED.
4 Trial Trial of
ofthis
thismatter
matter shall
shall be
be scheduled.
scheduled.
5 ORDEREDthis SO ORDERED this ALE;
AUS
l" 114
Ll '02'
9 tune
I protupc/Fe
1 4..gZuncpro tu vary 29, 2024.
6 6
7
8 HONO BLE MARIA T. CENZON Judge S period Court of Guam 9
JO 10
11 11
12
13 13
14
15
16 16
17 17
18
19 19
20 20
21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25
26 26
27 27
28 People v.
v. Salgado
Case No.
Criminal Case CM0l25-23 No. CMOl25-23
Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Re. Defendant's Dismiss to Dismiss
Motion to
Page Page 9 of9