People v. Sato

Opinion

S.’~.i(t_?•.~,~ ~

1 2021FE825 PM [~:25 2 CLER~CCJURT 3 4 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, )

) CRIMINAL CASE No. CF0485-20 8 PLAINTIFF, . ) 9 v.

)) DEcISIoN AND ORDER RE.

REQUEST To INCLUDE

10 ) JURY INSTRUCTION ON INTOXICATION BRADLEY P. SATO ) PURSUANT TO 9 GCA ~ 7.58 D0B: 06/16/1976, )

12 )

DEFENDANT. )

13 14 This matter is before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on Defendant Bradley P. 15 Sato’s (“Defendant”) request during the charging conference held on February 25, 16 17 2021, to include a jury instruction on intoxication, pursuant to 9 GCA Section 7.58. 18 Defendant was represented by Assistant Public Defenders John Morrison and Brian 19 Eggleston. The People were represented by Chief Prosecutor Basil O’Mallan. For the 20 reasons set forth herein, the Court finds no justifiable basis, based upon the evidence 21 22 adduced at trial, to instruct the jury on intoxication as a defense under 9 GCA § 7.58. 23 Defendant has requested the Court include an instruction to the jury regarding 24 intoxication in order to negate Defendant’s mens rea for the offenses of Third Degree 25 26 Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a Second Degree Felony) and Fourth Degree Criminal 27 Sexual Conduct (As a Misdemeanor). Amended Indictment (Feb. 25, 2021). The People 28 People v. Sato, CF0485-20, Decision and Order Re. Request to Include Jury Instruction on Intoxication have objected to this jury instruction, arguing that there was no evidence presented

2 during the trial of Defendant’s intoxication.

9 GCA Section 7.58 provides as foljows:

4 5 §(a)7.58. Intoxication.

As used in this Section:

6 (1) intoxication means an impairment of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of alcohol, drugs or other substances into 8 the body.

(2) self-induced intoxication means intoxication caused by substances which the person knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of 10 which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them pursuant to medical advice or under such circumstances 11 as would otherwise afford a defense to a charge of crime. 12 (b) Except as provided in Subsection (d), intoxication is not a defense to a 13 criminal charge. Evidence ~f intoxication ~ admissible whenever ~ 14 relevant ~ negate ~ ~ establish ~ element ~ offense charged. 15 (c) A person is reckless with respect to an element of the offense, even 16 though his disregard thereof is not conscious, if his not being conscious thereof is due to self-induced intoxication.

17 18 (d) Intoxication which is not self-induced is an affirmative defense if, by reason of such intoxication, the person at the time of his conduct lacks 19 substantial capacity either to appreciate its wrongfulness or to conform his 20 conduct to the requirements of the law. 21 9 GCA § 7.58 (emphasis added). 22 In this case, Defendant did not take the stand and testify; therefore, he did not 23 24 present any evidence that he was intoxicated as defined in Section 7.58 (a)(1) such that 25 the required specific intent to commit the crimes for which he has been charged can be 26 negated. There is no evidence, and the Defendant does not contend, that any 27 intoxication would not have been self-induced. The testimony at trial indicates that 28 People v. Sato, CF0485-20, Decision and Order Re. Request to Include Jury Instruction on Intoxication both Defendant and the alleged victim A.S., had been drinking over the course of

2 several hours. There was abundant testimony regarding A.S. having consumed

approximately 6 beers prior to meeting the Defendant at the Agana Pool bus stop and 4 then having consumed at least another 6 beers with the Defendant on August 29, 2020.

6 A.S. testified that she was not permitted on the bus because the bus driver did not

allow “drunk people” on the bus and that the bus driver could smell the alcohol on her 8 when she attempted to board the bus because she was not wearing a mask at that time.

9 io Witness Otisus Robert (“Robert”) testified that she was “really drunk” the night of the ~ alleged incident. 12 In contrast, the testimony with regard to Defendant’s consumption of alcohol 13 14 was extremely limited. The first testimony about Defendant drinking alcohol was 15 when A.S. testified that she gave him $20 to purchase “Natural Ice,” but he returned 16 with a 12-pack of Budweiser and the two shared it equally. Later, testimony indicated 17 18 that Defendant went to purchase more beer at the Asan Beach Mart. Robert testified 19 that he saw Defendant and A.S. drinking, but he did not provide any testimony about 20 the Defendant’s level of intoxication, stating only that he saw Defendant and A.S. 21 22 drinking and talking and “getting along,” but he did not speak to them. Defendant did 23 not take the stand and testify. 24 Defendant now asks this Court to include an instruction to the jury regarding 25 26 Defendant’s intoxication in order to negate the required mens rea or intent to commit 27 the offense. 28 People v. Sato, CF0485-20, Decision and Order Re. Request to Include Jury Instmction on Intoxication

Guam law is clear that evidence of intoxication is admissible to negate an

2 element of an offense charged. 9 GCA § 7.58(b)(2005); People v. Reyes, 2020 Guam 33,

¶65 (2020). However, when evidence of a defendant’s intoxication has been presented 4 to a jury, an instruction of intoxication is not always required. Id. (citing People v.

6 Nathan, 2018 Guam 13, ¶ 21 (2018)(”the mere fact that a defendant may have been ‘~ drinking prior to the commission of a crime does not establish intoxication” and does 8 not always give rise to the level of requiring an instruction”).

9 io An instruction would be necessary if defense counsel was relying on 11 intoxication as a defense; that does not appear to be the case here, as Defendant did not 12 take the stand or advance any defense, relying only upon the state of the evidence 13 14 presented during the People’s case-in-chief. Compare, Reyes at ¶ 67 (Reyes did not 15 advance an intoxication defense. Reyes testified that he had neither sexual intercourse 16 nor sexual contact with J.W.; he never argued that he did have sexual intercourse or 17

18 contact with J.W. but was too intoxicated to form the requisite criminal intent). 19 Moreover, an instruction on intoxication would only be required if there was 20 evidence of “debilitating intoxication’ such that ‘intoxication impaired the defendant’s 21

22 ability to form any requisite intent.” Id. at ¶ 68 (citing Nathan, 2018 Guam 13 ¶ 21).1 As 23 discussed, above, there was no evidence presented during the trial of this matter that 24 defendant was prevented by a “debilitating intoxication” from forming the requisite 25

26

27 1 See also, Connomwealth v. Brown, 872 N.E.2d 711, 727-28 (Mass. 2000)(evidence did not warrant an intoxication instruction because no evidence was presented that any alcohol ingested by the defendant had any effect on his LO ability to form any requisite criminal intent).

People v. Sato, CF0485-20, Decision and Order Re. Request to Include Jury Instruction on Intoxication

criminal intent. While there is certainly evidence that the Defendant consumed alcohol,

2 there is no testimony that Defendant’s consumption rendered him unable to form the

requisite intent to commit the offenses charged.

4 For these reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s request to include an

6 intoxication instruction.

So ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2021.

8 9 10 11 HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON

12 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SERVICE VIA EMAIL ,~ àc~owIedge that an eIectrór~c 23 copyofttieorigina[ws e-mailedto;

~F~r

25 D~ime~1~4~ 1~€~~.t9 Ak1 ~ 26 DeputyCIerk~~&ior Court of Guam

27

28 People v. Sato, CF0485-20, Decision and Order Re. Request to Include Jury Instruction on Intoxication