People v. Santos

Opinion

u![ilJ ulJiliil'ilL,

Territoriaf Law Library ili-til --,:r"ir-l i -rr i i

I IN TIIE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 PEOPLE OF GUAM. ) Criminal Case No. CF0030-08 J ) Plaintiff, ) 4 v. ) DECTSION AND ORDER ) re: Motion to Suppress 5 MICHAEL ANTHONY PONDTVIDA ) SANTOS. ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7

8 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on March 24,2009. 9 The People were represented by Assistant Attorney General Brenda Mader. Defendant was 10 represented by Attorney Sylvia L. G. Stake. Having reviewed the memorandum and papers ll presented, the court now issues the following decision denying Defendant's motion to I2 suppress. l3 BACKGROUND I4 On January 25,2008, Defendant was indicted on four counts of First Degree Criminal 15 Sexual Conduct, a First Degree Felony. The People assert that Defendant committed the L6 acts supporting his indictment on or about December 27,2007. These Acts were reported to t7 a Department of Youth Affairs StaffOfficer on December 16, 2007. After they were 18 reported Defendant was placed in lock down. The Defendant was interviewed on January l9 17,2008. The interview of the Defendant occurred between approximately 10:53 p.m. and 20 12.09 a.m. During his interview Defendant's Department of Youth Corrections Counselor, 2l Kenneth Castro, was present. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Defendant requests that the court suppress the all the statements he made prior to his 24 arrest and exclude any and all evidence obtained indirectly from those staternents. He 25 supports this request with the assertion that prior to and during his pre-arrest interrogation:

,t,Rlf,ffiMiliL I 1) he was improperly confined; 2) he was refused the assistance of legal counsel despite his 2 multiple requests for an attorney; and 3) that he was pressured by his counselor to provide a a J statement to the police' Defendant argues that the standard applied in by the 1992 Colorado 4 Supreme Court in Robledo, should be extended to require that a juvenile counselor,s words 5 and actions during a police interrogation be more shictly scrutinized or otherwise qualified. 6 People v. Robledo, 832 p .2d 249, 2Sl (Colo. lg92).

7 The People have filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendant,s request. In their 8 opposition they deny the Defendant's assertions and argue that the Defendant,s statement 9 was made subsequent to a Mirandawarning and voluntarily made. l0 In2007 the Guam Suprane Court re-affirmed its test of voluntari ness. people of Guam 1l v. Farata,2007 Guam 8,1[46 (sup. ct. Guam 2007). It explained ,,,thatthe voluntary, t2 knowing and intelligent nature of a Miranda waiveris to be gleaned from the totality of the l3 circumstances, which includes 'the background, experience and conduct of the defendant.,,, l4 Id' (internal citations omitted). The Farata court explained that,.whether a Miranda waiver l5 is not coerced and therefore valid depends on consideration of 'two distinct dimensions.,,, t6 Id.

l7 First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntaryin the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice l8 rather than intimioation, coercion, or deception' Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness both ofthe nature right being abandoned and the t9 abandon it' only"f 4: if the 'totality of the circumstances"onr"qr"o"es of the decision to sunounding the intenogation, 20 reveal both an uncoerced choice agd the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived. 2l Id. 22 under the standard above the court is unable to find that Defendant,s statement was 23 coerced' At the hearing the Defendant did not provide the court with any evidence that the 24 Defendant requested legal counsel or that his counselor acted in an intimidating or pressure- 25

Page -2- I inducing manner. He did not present any evidence to counter the People's presentation that

2 Defendant knowing waived his right to counsel or that his pre-statement confinernent was

3 unusual or oppressive. The Defendant further failed to present the court with any evidence

4 that the Defendant held his counselor in a position of special trust.

5 The court finds the statements of the People's witnesses of the Defendant's knowing

6 waiver and voluntary statement to be sufficiently credible. It is unwilling to extend or create

7 a new Robledo-llke standard which would require, that prior to speaking to a defend arrt, a

8 juvenile counselor's should first offer a Miranda-rike caveat.

9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons above Defendant's motion to suppress is denied. This mater is set for

l1 turther proceeding, on-v-,fr* D cl , 2009 at-t g___r ,n. l2 SO ORDEREO this?? dayof May 2009.

t4 l5 t6 Superior Court of Guam t7 18

t9 20

2l { 22

25 Page -3-