,.... ,; ~~
l~ i Lt. i..J SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 2823 AUG 28 AM lO: 4 l 3 CLERK OF::G'OURT 4
5 BY=~ 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0265-23 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 PARIS CHRISTIAN REYES SHARPE, 12 Defendant. 13
15 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on July 27, 2023, for hearing on 16 Defendant PARIS CHRISTIAN REYES SHARPE's ("Defendant") Motion for a New Trial. 17 Present were Defendant with counsel, Assistant Public Defender William C. Bischoff, and 18 Assistant Attorney General Christine S. Tenorio on behalf of the People of Guam ("the 19 Government"). Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the 20 Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Jury Selection and Trial commenced in this matter on June 12, 2023. On the same day, 23 Third-Party Guam Legal Services Corporation - Disability Law Center ("GLSC") filed an Ex 24 Parte Third Parties Motion to Quash the Office of the Attorney General and Public Defender 25 Service Corporations Subpoenas to Guam Legal Services Corporation - Disability Law Center 26 Employees Shayla Canare and Robert G.P. Cruz ("Motion to Quash"). GLSC moved to quash 27 the subpoenas on the basis that they sought privileged information and there was no showing of 28
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 1 of6 substantial need, undue hardship, and inability to obtain the information from other sources. 2 (Mot. Quash, Jun. 12, 2023). Defendant opposed. See Opp'n, Jun. 13, 2023. Defendant set forth 3 that what he "is most interested in knowing here is the date when alleged victim R.P. first went 4 to GLSC to initiate a complaint concerning him, and on what exact date she first asserted that she 5 had been sexually assaulted by him" as well as "how deliberate the GLSC procedures are for 6 preparing declarations, such as the one R.P. signed there on April 5, 2023 ... and which was filed 7 in court the same morning." Id at 1-2. 8 On June 13, 2023, at a hearing on the Motion, the victim, R.P. (DOB: 01/11/1971), 9 declined to waive the content of any communications between her and any GLSC employee, but 10 agreed to waive the privilege as to Ms. Canare as to when she came to GLSC. 11 At trial, the jury heard sworn testimony from Ms. Canare,.Gregorio Cruz, Shirley Untalan 12 from Healing Hearts, Guam Police Department Officers Daniel Cruz, Riccalynn Lizama, and 13 Peter C. Cristostomo, AG Investigator Keane Pangelinan, and the victim, R.P. (DOB: 14 01/11/1971). On June 19, 2023, the jury found Defendant guilty of Third Degree Criminal Sexual 15 Conduct (As a Second Degree Felony). 16 On June 26, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for a New Trial. On July 11, 2023, the 17 Government and GLSC each filed an Opposition. On July 17, 2023, Defendant filed his Reply. 18 On July 27, 2023, the Court heard arguments on the Motion and subsequently placed the 19 matter under advisement. 21 Under Guam law, the "court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to him if 22 required in the interests of justice." 8 G.C.A. § 110.30(a). "[A] trial court's discretion to grant a 23 new trial is much broader than its power to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal." People v. 24 Leslie, 2011 Guam 23 ~ 15 (citation omitted). 25 In granting a new trial, the trial court does not have to view the evidence favorably to the verdict and in general can weigh the evidence and evaluate for itself the 26 credibility of the witnesses. But the statute allows a new trial to be granted only if 27 required in the interests of justice and, per case law, when evidence preponderates 28 sufficiently heavily against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 2 of6 have occurred. It is only in an exceptional case that the trial court should interfere with thejury's/actualfindings. This power to grant a new trial against the jury's 2 verdict obviously should be exercised cautiously and sparingly. 3 People v. Sablan, 2023 Guam 4 ,r 31 (internal quotation marks, alterations, citations omitted) 4 (emphasis added). "[W]here a motion for new trial is based on the weight of the evidence, in 5 weighing that. evidence, a trial court may not grant a new trial based solely on its disagreement 6 with the jury's credibility determinations, unless credibility issues arise to the 'exceptional 7 circumstances' detailed above-including testimony that is 'patently incredible or defies physical 8 realities."' People v. Messier, 2014 Guam 34 ,r 21 (citation omitted). 9 In this case, Defendant moves the Court for a new trial because the Government's case 10 was entirely dependent upon the victim's credibility and his Sixth Amendment rights were 11 violated when he was not allowed to question GLSC employees regarding what date the victim 12 told them she was sexually assaulted by Defendant. See generally, Mof, Jun. 26, 2023. At a 13 minimum, Defendant moves the Court to "take in camera testimony of GLSC employee Shayna 14 Canare and attorney Robert Cruz to determine exactly what, and when, victim R.P. told GLSC 15 about the alleged sexual assault in this case." (Mot. at 2). The Government opposes, arguing that 16 Defendant was able to extensively cross examine the victim "regarding what dates that she had 17 told each different agency that she had been sexually assaulted." (Opp'n at 4). 18 The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall 19 enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. 20 "The Organic Act of Guam both specifically incorporates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation 21 Clause and provides an independent right for criminal defendants to be confronted with the 22 witnesses against him." People v. Kotto, 2020 Guam 4 ,r 15 (internal citations and quotation 23 marks omitted). 24 Cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness 25 and the truth of his testimony are tested. Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross- 26 examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness' story to test the witness' 27 perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness. 28
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 3 of6 Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974). 2 "While the Sixth Amendment and the Organic Act provide a right to cross-examine 3 witnesses, defendants are not guaranteed the right to cross-examine in whatever way, and to 4 whatever extent, the defense might wish." Id. at ,r 16 (citations omitted). "A defendant's 5 confrontation rights are not absolute; they may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other 6 legitimate interests in the criminal process." Id. (quoting People v. Ojeda, 2011 Guam 27 ,r 22) 7 (quotation marks omitted). Trial judges have "the authority to exclude evidence through the 8 application of evidentiary rules that themselves serve the interests of fairness and reliability - 9 even if the defendant would prefer to see that evidence admitted." Id. (quoting Ojeda, 2011 Guam 10 27,r 22).
11 In support of his Motion, Defendant cites to Murdoch v. Castro, 365 F.3d 699 (9th Cir.
12 2004) ("Murdoch I"). In Murdoch L the Ninth Circuit "implicitly held that it was clearly 13 established by the Supreme Court that [the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment] could, 14 in some circumstances, be violated by the failure to produce a document that was otherwise 15 protected by the attorney-client privilege." Murdoch v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
,.... ,; ~~
l~ i Lt. i..J SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 2823 AUG 28 AM lO: 4 l 3 CLERK OF::G'OURT 4
5 BY=~ 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0265-23 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 PARIS CHRISTIAN REYES SHARPE, 12 Defendant. 13
15 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on July 27, 2023, for hearing on 16 Defendant PARIS CHRISTIAN REYES SHARPE's ("Defendant") Motion for a New Trial. 17 Present were Defendant with counsel, Assistant Public Defender William C. Bischoff, and 18 Assistant Attorney General Christine S. Tenorio on behalf of the People of Guam ("the 19 Government"). Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the 20 Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Jury Selection and Trial commenced in this matter on June 12, 2023. On the same day, 23 Third-Party Guam Legal Services Corporation - Disability Law Center ("GLSC") filed an Ex 24 Parte Third Parties Motion to Quash the Office of the Attorney General and Public Defender 25 Service Corporations Subpoenas to Guam Legal Services Corporation - Disability Law Center 26 Employees Shayla Canare and Robert G.P. Cruz ("Motion to Quash"). GLSC moved to quash 27 the subpoenas on the basis that they sought privileged information and there was no showing of 28
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 1 of6 substantial need, undue hardship, and inability to obtain the information from other sources. 2 (Mot. Quash, Jun. 12, 2023). Defendant opposed. See Opp'n, Jun. 13, 2023. Defendant set forth 3 that what he "is most interested in knowing here is the date when alleged victim R.P. first went 4 to GLSC to initiate a complaint concerning him, and on what exact date she first asserted that she 5 had been sexually assaulted by him" as well as "how deliberate the GLSC procedures are for 6 preparing declarations, such as the one R.P. signed there on April 5, 2023 ... and which was filed 7 in court the same morning." Id at 1-2. 8 On June 13, 2023, at a hearing on the Motion, the victim, R.P. (DOB: 01/11/1971), 9 declined to waive the content of any communications between her and any GLSC employee, but 10 agreed to waive the privilege as to Ms. Canare as to when she came to GLSC. 11 At trial, the jury heard sworn testimony from Ms. Canare,.Gregorio Cruz, Shirley Untalan 12 from Healing Hearts, Guam Police Department Officers Daniel Cruz, Riccalynn Lizama, and 13 Peter C. Cristostomo, AG Investigator Keane Pangelinan, and the victim, R.P. (DOB: 14 01/11/1971). On June 19, 2023, the jury found Defendant guilty of Third Degree Criminal Sexual 15 Conduct (As a Second Degree Felony). 16 On June 26, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for a New Trial. On July 11, 2023, the 17 Government and GLSC each filed an Opposition. On July 17, 2023, Defendant filed his Reply. 18 On July 27, 2023, the Court heard arguments on the Motion and subsequently placed the 19 matter under advisement. 21 Under Guam law, the "court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to him if 22 required in the interests of justice." 8 G.C.A. § 110.30(a). "[A] trial court's discretion to grant a 23 new trial is much broader than its power to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal." People v. 24 Leslie, 2011 Guam 23 ~ 15 (citation omitted). 25 In granting a new trial, the trial court does not have to view the evidence favorably to the verdict and in general can weigh the evidence and evaluate for itself the 26 credibility of the witnesses. But the statute allows a new trial to be granted only if 27 required in the interests of justice and, per case law, when evidence preponderates 28 sufficiently heavily against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 2 of6 have occurred. It is only in an exceptional case that the trial court should interfere with thejury's/actualfindings. This power to grant a new trial against the jury's 2 verdict obviously should be exercised cautiously and sparingly. 3 People v. Sablan, 2023 Guam 4 ,r 31 (internal quotation marks, alterations, citations omitted) 4 (emphasis added). "[W]here a motion for new trial is based on the weight of the evidence, in 5 weighing that. evidence, a trial court may not grant a new trial based solely on its disagreement 6 with the jury's credibility determinations, unless credibility issues arise to the 'exceptional 7 circumstances' detailed above-including testimony that is 'patently incredible or defies physical 8 realities."' People v. Messier, 2014 Guam 34 ,r 21 (citation omitted). 9 In this case, Defendant moves the Court for a new trial because the Government's case 10 was entirely dependent upon the victim's credibility and his Sixth Amendment rights were 11 violated when he was not allowed to question GLSC employees regarding what date the victim 12 told them she was sexually assaulted by Defendant. See generally, Mof, Jun. 26, 2023. At a 13 minimum, Defendant moves the Court to "take in camera testimony of GLSC employee Shayna 14 Canare and attorney Robert Cruz to determine exactly what, and when, victim R.P. told GLSC 15 about the alleged sexual assault in this case." (Mot. at 2). The Government opposes, arguing that 16 Defendant was able to extensively cross examine the victim "regarding what dates that she had 17 told each different agency that she had been sexually assaulted." (Opp'n at 4). 18 The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall 19 enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. 20 "The Organic Act of Guam both specifically incorporates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation 21 Clause and provides an independent right for criminal defendants to be confronted with the 22 witnesses against him." People v. Kotto, 2020 Guam 4 ,r 15 (internal citations and quotation 23 marks omitted). 24 Cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness 25 and the truth of his testimony are tested. Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross- 26 examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness' story to test the witness' 27 perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness. 28
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 3 of6 Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974). 2 "While the Sixth Amendment and the Organic Act provide a right to cross-examine 3 witnesses, defendants are not guaranteed the right to cross-examine in whatever way, and to 4 whatever extent, the defense might wish." Id. at ,r 16 (citations omitted). "A defendant's 5 confrontation rights are not absolute; they may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other 6 legitimate interests in the criminal process." Id. (quoting People v. Ojeda, 2011 Guam 27 ,r 22) 7 (quotation marks omitted). Trial judges have "the authority to exclude evidence through the 8 application of evidentiary rules that themselves serve the interests of fairness and reliability - 9 even if the defendant would prefer to see that evidence admitted." Id. (quoting Ojeda, 2011 Guam 10 27,r 22).
11 In support of his Motion, Defendant cites to Murdoch v. Castro, 365 F.3d 699 (9th Cir.
12 2004) ("Murdoch I"). In Murdoch L the Ninth Circuit "implicitly held that it was clearly 13 established by the Supreme Court that [the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment] could, 14 in some circumstances, be violated by the failure to produce a document that was otherwise 15 protected by the attorney-client privilege." Murdoch v. Castro, 609 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) 16 ("Murdoch If'). Subsequently, in Murdoch IL the Ninth Circuit found that "[b ]ecause the 17 attorney-client privilege protects only a communication between an attorney and a client, not the 18 facts that are communicated, a defendant would remain free to question the witness about the 19 underlying facts ... " 609 F.3d at 995. "The privilege only protects disclosure of the 20 communications themselves; it does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts, so long as the 21 underlying facts can be proven without resort to the privileged materials." Id. (internal quotation 22 marks and citation omitted). 23 In this case, Defendant was charged via indictment of Third Degree Criminal Sexual
24 Conduct against the victim occurring "on or about the period between March 1, 2023 and March 25 31, 2023, inclusive." (Indictment, Apr. 27, 2023). At trial, the jury heard testimony that the 26 victim went to GLSC to get a protective order, P00035-23 on April 3, 2023, after trying to make 27 a complaint with the Guam Police Department at the Central Precinct. The victim testified that 28 she was not able to get a restraining order the same day she first went to the GLSC office because
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 4 of6 "they had to go through procedures" and that she had to go back to GLSC again. All the filings 2 in P00035-23 (Ex. 8) were admitted into evidence and were available for the jury to review in its 3 deliberation. This included a Declaration signed by the victim under penalty of perjury, which 4 set forth that she was sexually assaulted by Defendant on or about March 20, 2023. The 5 Declaration was dated April 5, 2023. Filings in related Protective Order Case No. P00037-23 6 (Ex. 9) were also admitted into evidence and available for the jury to review in its deliberation. 7 In P00037-23, Defendant petitioned the court for a protective order, alleging that the victim 8 physically abused him on April 2, 2023, and that when she came to his room and demanded he 9 had sex with her, he told her that he did not want to have sex with her and that she does not tum 10 him on any longer. 11 Defendant's interests in questioning Ms. Canare and Attorney Cruz were regarding what 12 date the victim told them she was sexually assaulted by Defendant. Defendant was able to 13 extensively cross-examine the victim about the dates and events set forth in the protective order 14 at trial. Defendant specifically asked the victim whether or not she told the police or GLSC on 15 April 3, 2023 that she was raped the day prior. The jury was also able to hear testimony about 16 other dates that the victim indicated the sexual assault occurred on to GPD and Healing Hearts. 17 Officer Lizama acknowledged on cross-examination that when she interviewed the victim, she 18 first said the incident occurred on March 26 and later on maybe March 31. Ms. Untalan from 19 Healing Hearts testified that a Healing Hearts referral was made on April 6, 2023, that the victim 20 completed intake on April 11, 2023, and that the victim told her that the sexual assault occurred 21 on the night of April 2 at one a.m. The victim further testified on cross-examination that she did 22 not remember the date or the time, just that it was in the evening because she was getting ready 23 for bed. The Court finds that attorney-client privilege did not need to be breached for Defendant 24 to effectively cross-examine the victim on the underlying facts forming the basis of the instant 25 matter, and Defendant's confrontation clause rights under the Sixth Amendment were not 26 violated. The Court does not find that the victim's testimony was "patently incredible or defies 27 physical realities" thereby creating credibility issues arising to exceptional circumstances. See 28 Messier, 2014 Guam 34 ,r 21. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for a New Trial.
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 5 of6 CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion for a New Trial.
3 Parties shall return for Sentencing on September 29, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. Sentencing Memoranda
4 shall be filed by September 27, 2023.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED thisJ~fflday of August, 2023. 6
9 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 10
II
People v. Sharpe Case No. CF0265-23 Decision and Order
Page 6 of6