People v. Sandoval

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0475-12 )

4 )

5 vs. )

)

6 )

SIGFREDO SORIANO SANDOVAL, ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 )

8 Defendant. )

)

9 ) 10

11 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P PEREZ on October 5,2012 on 12 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Assistant Public Defender Raymond B. Ilagan appeared on 13 behalf of Defendant while Assistant Attorney General Brian D. Gallagher represented the 14 Government. Having considered the Parties' arguments, the record and the applicable law, the 15 Court now issues this Decision and Order.

16 BACKGROUND

17 The case before the Court involves charges of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct 18 and Incest. On October 2, 2012, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars 19 because the Court believed that the indictment charges could be made with more factual details 20 and a narrower time frame. The Government had an opportunity to speak with the alleged 21 victim but was unable to add detail to the indictment. On October 5, 2012, the Government 22 submitted a Bill of Particulars that stated the victim "is unable to be more specific." The 23 Defendant requests dismissal on the grounds that he is unable to prepare a defense leading to a 24 violation of Defendant's right to due process. The Court now considers Defendant's Motion to 25 Dismiss.

26

27

People v, Sandoval, 28 Decision and Order Criminal Case No, CF0475-12

Page I

DISCUSSION

2 Essentially, the Defense argues that the time period alleged in the indictment is too broad 3 and prevents the Defendant from effectively preparing a defense. Basic defenses such as alibi, 4 addressing the behavior of the alleged victim after the crimes and the passage of time and its effect on the child witness, are limited based on the lack of specific dates. Defendant asserts 6 that his due process rights are violated as a result of the inadequate indictment. 7 In opposition, the Government argues that in sexual abuse cases involving minor victims 8 the prosecution must be given some flexibility based on the child-victim's age and inability to 9 recall dates, especially when dealing with a pattern of abuse as opposed to a single incident. 10 Moreover, under Guam law, time is not an element of criminal sexual conduct. The II Government further argues that in these types of cases, the conviction may be upheld so long as 12 the child-victim is able to testifY as to a general time period an to the specific acts that occurred. 13 In this case, the Government asserts that they have provided the Defendant with a time frame 14 which has a distinct beginning and a clear end, which is sufficient to satisfY both the Organic 15 Act and the Constitution. See Government's Opposition to Motion for Bill of Particulars. 16 Guam law requires that an indictment be a plain, concise and definite written statement 17 of the essential facts constituting the offense charged, 8 G.C.A. § 55.10 (a), and that it state for 18 each count the official or customary citation of the statute or other provision of law which 19 defendant is alleged to have violated, § 55.10 (b). Thus, Guam law is in accord with well- 20 established case law, which holds that an indictment is sufficient if 1) it contains the necessary 21 elements of the crime alleged, 2) it informs the defendant of the crime charged with sufficient 22 clarity to allow him to adequately defend against the charges and 3) it is stated with sufficient 23 clarity to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense. See, e.g., United States v. Boone, 24 951 F.2d 1526, 1542 (9th Cir. 1991). People v. Muna, 1996 WL 104532 at *3, No. CR94- 25 00075A (D. Guam. App. Div. March 6, 1996). 26 After reviewing both the indictment as well as the grand jury transcripts, the Court finds 27

People v. Sandoval, 28 Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0475·12

3

that dismissal is unwarranted. The indictment, Bill of Particulars and the grand jury transcripts 2 provide sufficient information for the Defendant to prepare his defense. Through these 3 documents, the Defense is able to ascertain the facts for which he has been indicted and the 4 place where the alleged crimes occurred. Specifically, the indictment alleges that the Defendant 5 caused his hand to touch the breast of 1.M.S. a minor at least fourteen years old but less than 16 6 (Charge One) and had sexual intercourse with 1.M.S., who is his descendant (Charge Two). 7 Furthermore, the alleged crimes against 1.M.S. took place at different times but on multiple 8 incidents occurring in the bedroom of her parents', the Defendant's, home. Bill of Particulars at 9 2. 10 Although the indictment and the grand jury transcripts fail to provide a specific time and 11 dates for when the alleged crimes occurred, time is not an essential element of the crimes 12 charged in this particular case. People v. Campbell, 2006 Guam 14 ~16. The Government need 13 only prove that the crimes occurred on a date reasonably near the dates set forth in the 14 indictment, especially when dealing with charges such as those found here. See Campbell, 2006 15 Guam 14. Generally, a defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars setting forth the exact 16 date of the commission of the offense. See Us. v. Noetzel, 124 F.R.D. 518 (D.C. Mass 1989). 17 For cases involving the alleged abuse of young children, a greater degree of flexibility is 18 required because children are often unable to recall the exact date when a crime occurred. See 19 Commonwealth v. Grof, 548 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. 1988). In this case, the alleged victim was 20 14 years old on the dates alleged in the indictment and she is unable to be more specific after 21 repeated attempts by the Government to illicit additional specifics. Based on these facts, the 22 Court finds that the allegation of a specified time range as opposed to an exact date, coupled 23 with the other factual allegations contained in the Bill of Particulars, are sufficient for the 24 Defendant to prepare his defense. 25

26

27

People v. Sandoval, 28 Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CF0475-12

4

CONCLUSION

2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DE IES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 3 So ORDERED this day of October, 2012. 4

5

6 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 7 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 8

9

10

II

12

J3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

People v, Sandoval, 28 Decision and Order Criminal Case No, CF0475-12