People v. Santos

Opinion

2018 JAN 30 AM 10: 46 2

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMNAL CASE NO. CF 0364-17 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 DECISION AND ORDER ON MANUEL DAVID CAMACHO SANTOS DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 11 ALL CHARGES FOR LACK OF DOB: 10/2011995, PROBABLE CAUSE 12 Defendant. 13

14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on November 20,2017, upon 16 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss All Charges for Lack of Probable Cause. Defendant Manuel 17 David Camacho Santos ("Defendant") was represented by Assistant Public Defender Alisha L. 18 Molyneux. The People of Guam ("People") were represented by Assistant Attorney General 19 Joseph A. Perez. After reviewing the pleadings, for the reasons set forth below, the Court 20 DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss All Charges for Lack of Probable Cause. 21 BACKGROUND 22 The People of Guam indicted Defendant with two counts of Second Degree Criminal 23 Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony), and one count of Child Abuse (as a Misdemeanor) by 24 way oflndictment on July 6, 2017. Defendant had previously waived his right to speedy trial on 25 June 30,2017. 26 Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss All Charges for Lack of Probable Cause 27 ("Motion to Dismiss") on October 6, 2017, arguing that "[t]here must be some evidence to 28

ORIGINAL Decision and Order The People of Guam v. Manuel David Camacho Santos, Criminal Case No. CF0364-17

support every element of the offense before the court can make a fining of probable cause". 2 Def.'s Mot. 3 (Oct. 7, 2017). Defendant argued that "there is no evidence to support the 3 essential elements of the charges against Mr. Santos." ld. 4 On November 7, 2017, the People filed a Superseding Indictment adding two counts of 5 Fourth Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a Misdemeanor) to the original Indictment. The 6 People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on November 15, 2017, and 7 Defendant filed his Reply on November 20, 2017. 8 On November 20, 2018, the Court took this matter under advisement. 9 DISCUSSION 10 As the People charged Defendant by way of indictment, the Court examines the rules for 11 pleading an indictment, which are codified in Title 8 Guam Code Annotated Section 55.10(a). 12 Section 55.10(a) provides: 13 (a) The indictment or the information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and shall be 14 signed by the prosecuting attorney. It need not contain a formal commencement, a formal conclusion or any other matter not necessary to such statement. 15 Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count. 16 It may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that he committed it by one or more 17 specified means. 18 An indictment itself is sufficient where "it contains the elements of the crime alleged, 19 adequately informs the defendant of the crime to allow him to defend against the charges, and is 20 stated with sufficient clarity to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense." Guam v. 21 Jones, 2006 Guam 13, <][3. When analyzing legal sufficiency "[i]t is also well established that an 22 indictment should be read in its entirety, construed according to common sense, and interpreted 23 to include facts which are necessarily implied." ld. Further, "[a]n indictment returned by a 24 legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, if valid on its face, is enough for trial of the charge 25 on the merits." United States v. Costello, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956). 26 The Defendant argues that the Magistrate's Complaint filed by the People violates the 27 pleading standards set in 8 GCA § 15.20. Although 8 GCA § 15.10 states that the pleading 28 standards for a magistrate's complaint shall be the same as for an indictment, the Court finds no

Page 2 of3 Decision and Order The People of Guam v. Manuel David Camacho Santos, Criminal Case No. CF0364-17

cause to grant Defendant's request in this matter. A grand jury found probable cause to return a 2 true bill against Defendant on two occasions. The Court generally does not have "authority for 3 looking into and revisiting the judgment of the grand jury upon the evidence, for the purpose of 4 determining whether or not the finding was founded upon sufficient proof." Costello, 350 U.S. 5 at 362-63. Therefore, the Court declines to examine the grand jury's finding of probable cause. 6 Defendant's crafts his motion focusing on whether the evidence supports a finding that 7 Defendant and the minor victim were within the same household, and whether Defendant had 8 care, custody or control of the minor victim. Defendant's arguments are best suited to be 9 decided by a jury of his peers at trial. Defendant's proper remedy would be to force the People 10 to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court declines to find the 11 necessity to dismiss any of the charges in this matter. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 12 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to find the necessity to dismiss any of 15 the charges in this matter. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 16

17 JAN 30 2018 18 IT IS SO ORDERED this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 19

20 • 21 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 22 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 23

26 SERVICE VI/\ ~'"''!tT BOX 27 I acknowledge that a copy or the Original hereto wus placed in the court b-:lx of: 28

Page 3 cif 3