FI LED
__ n
CLER!< OF CLERK OF COURT
couRT
202~ JUL 10 20211 PM I|: 20
I O PH
IN IN THE SUPERIOR
SUPERIORCOURT
COURTOF
OFGUAMJPERIGR
GUAtJJPER!ORCOURT
COURT
OF <9 OFGUAM Q
Quai
PEOPLE OF GUAM GUAM CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE
CASEno.
NO.CF0487-20
CF0487-20
v.
DECISION DECISION AND
AND ORDER
ORDER RE:
COMPETENCY COMPETENCY ISSUES
ISSUES AND SECOND
EDWARD EDWARD ACE ACE SICAT SI CAT aka KIM,
aka KIM,
FORENSIC EVALUATION FORENSIC EVALUATION
DOB: DOB: 09/06/1992 09/06/1992
Defendant. Defendant.
This matter came came before the Honorable Dana A.
A. Gutierrez
Gutierrez on
on March
March14,
14, 2024,
2024, and
and again
on April April 12, 12, 2024, 2024, for a Competency Hearing Hearing for Defendant Edward Ace Defendant Edward Ace Sic at("Sicat").
Sicat ("Sic at"). At the
hearings, Attorney Michael hearings, Attorney Michael F. Phillies Phillips appeared
appeared on
on behalf
behalf of
ofSic at, and
Sicat, and Assistant
Assistant Attorney
Attorney
General ChristineS.S. Tenorio General Christine Tenorio appeared appearedon
onbehalf
behalfof
of the
the People
People of
of Guam
Guam ("People"). Public
Public
1
Defender Stephen P. Hattori Stephen P. Hattori also also represents
representsSicat
Sic atininthis
thismatter.
matter.' Afterreview
After review of the evidence,
hearing the arguments arguments of counsel, and based on applicable law, the the Court
Court finds
finds that
that Sic
Sicat did not
lack substantial capacityatatthe substantial capacity the time time of the
the alleged
alleged offenses.
offenses. However,
However,Sic at has
Sicat has requested
requested
additional additional forensic evaluation as to his present competency to present competency to be proceeded against at trial.
against at trial. The
Court agrees that the issues that the issues he
he raises
raises were
were not
not fully addressed
addressed in his prior forensic evaluation.
evaluation.
Therefore, the Court Court ORDERS a second forensic evaluation, evaluation, limited to the the specific
specific questions
questions
addressed below. addressed below.
I1 Public Public Defender Defender Hattori
Hattori was
was present
present at
at the March 14,
the March 14, 2024
2024 hearing,
hearing, but was not present at the present at the April 12,
12, 2024
2024
hearing. hearing.
O
DECISION AND ORDER RE: COMPETENCY ISSUES AND SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION People of
CF0487-20, People ofGuam Guam v.
v. Edward
Edward Ace
Ace Siccat
at aka
aka Kim
Kim
BACKGROUND
A. First Forensic Evaluation
This case has been before the Court since September September 2020, and numerous trial dates have
been scheduled been scheduled and andvacated. SeeDec.
vacated.See Dec.&&Order
Order atat 1-5
1-5 (July
(July 20, 2023). On October 20, 2023). October 4, 2023, 2023,
Sicat's counsel filed a Motion counsel filed Motion in liming limine for Hearing on
on Defendant's
Defendant's Competency to be Proceeded
Against, which raised Sicat's apparent apparent "inability to
to meaningfully
meaningfully understand
understand the nature of the
proceedings, assist and proceedings, assist and cooperate cooperate with
with his
his counsel,
counsel, follow
follow the
the evidence,
evidence, or participate in his participate in
defense." defense." Id. atat 6,6; see see also
also Decl.
Deel. Michael
Michael F. Phillips
Phillips at 2 (Oct.
(Oct. 4,
4, 2023)
2023) ("The
("The Defendant
Defendant is
is
completely unable to completely unable to assist assist or
or cooperate
cooperatewith
with defense
defense counsel.
counsel.We
We are
are not
not able
able to
to have
have aa
productive conversation with productive conversation with the the Defendant
Defendant about
about anything
anything involving
involving the
the facts
facts of
of his case or
or
upcoming t:riaL").
trial."). The
The Court
Court ordered
ordered Sic to undergo
Sicat to undergo a forensic evaluation, and for the examiner
to provide the the following:
following:
1) 1) An
Anopinion
opinion asastotothethedefendant's defendant'scompetency
competency toto bebeproceeded proceeded against,
against,
together with
with the
the reasons
reasons andand basis
basisfor
for the
the opinion.
opinion.
2) An
Anopinion
opinionasastotothe
thedefendant's
defendant'scompetency
competencyto to be
besentenced,
sentenced, together
together with
the reasons
reasons and
andbasis
basisfor
for the
the opinion.
opinion.
3) An
Anopinion
opinionasastotowhether
whetherorornot notthe
thedefendant
defendant was
was suffering
suffering from
from any
any mental
mental
illness, disease
disease or defect at the time of ofthe the conduct
conduct alleged
alleged to
to have
have constituted
constituted
the offense
offense charged
charged against
against the
the defendant
defendant and
and whether,
whether, as result
result thereof, he
lacked substantial capacityto substantial capacity to know know or understand whathe understand what hewas was doing,
doing, or
or to
know or or understand
understand thatthathis
hisconduct
conductwaswaswrongful
wrongful or
or to
to control his actions,
actions, or
to the
the extent
extent to which,
which, asas aa consequence consequence of mental
mental illness, disease,
disease, or defect,
the defendant
defendant diddid or
or did not have a state
state of mind
mind relevant to any any issue issue in the
trial of
of action.
action.
Order for for Forensic
Forensic Evaluation
Evaluation at 2 (Oct. 5,
5, 2023).
2023). Separately,
Separately, at the request of Sicat's request of Sicat's counsel, counsel,
the Court ordered that a Tagalog Tagalog interpreter
interpreterbe
be present
present to
to assist
assist Sic evaluation22 the forensic evaluation
Sicat at the
2 2 Although this Although this case has beenpending has been pendingforfor several several years,
years, Sic
Sicatatdid
didnot
notraise
raisethe
theissue
issueofofhis
hisEnglish
Englishproficiency
proficiency until
until
2023. Sicat's fall 2023. Sicat'scounsel counselhas
hasstated
stated that
that although
althoughSic at can
Sicat can speak
speak some
some English,
English, he
he needs
needs assistance
assistance understanding
2·
3
DECISION AND ORDER RE: COMPETENCY COMPETENCY ISSUES AND SECOND SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION CF0487-20, CF0487-20, People People of
ofGuam
Guam v. Edward
Edward Ace
Ace Siccat
at aka
aka Kim
Kim
November 7, On November 7, 2023,
2023, Dr.
Dr. Juan
Juan Rapadas,
Rapadas, aa Clinical
Clinical Psychologist
Psychologist with the Judiciary of of
Guam's CClient lient SServices er vices aand Family Couns Counseling Division ("CSFC"), eling Divis ("CSFC"), pperformed erformed aa forens
forensic
evaluation on Sic evaluation Sicat.
at. A
A Tagalog interpreter was Tagalog interpreter initially present was initially present as ordered for the as ordered the forensic forensic
evaluation. However, Sicatat informed evaluation. informed Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas that
that he
he did not need
need the
the interpreter
interpreter after
after all.
all.
The interpreter was then dismissed, and the the forensic
forensic evaluation
evaluation proceeded
proceeded in English?3
in English.
B. B. Dr. Rapadas's
Dr. Rapadas's Report
November 17, On November 17, 2023,
2023, Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas produced
produced his
his written
written report
report (hereafter,
(hereafter, "Rapadas
"Rapadas
which provided
Report"), which provided information information about
about his
his forensic
forensic evaluation ofSic evaluation of Sicat.
at. Dr. Rapadas found
that Sicatat was that was "very "very cooperative
cooperat ive when
when questioned,"
questioned," and
and "[i]t
"[i]t was
was easy
easy to
to get him to alk. 79
to ttalk."
Report at Rapadas Report at 2 (Nov. 17, 17, 2023). Dr. Rapadas found found that
that Sic
Sicat was
was "oriented
"oriented to person, time,
place, lace, reason reas on for for testing,
t ing, and
and object,"
ject ," and articulate and "could art iculat e specifically p ecifically why
why he
he was bbeing
eing
evaluated or evaluated why I was seeing him." Id. atat 3.
or why 3. He Healso
also found
found that
that Sicat's
Sicat's thought
thought processes
processes were
"organized," and "organized," and that that his thoughts were "never "never confused,
confused, delusional
delusional or
or bizarre
bizarre for
for the
the better
better part
the forensic of the interview." Id. atat 4.4.Dr.
forensic interview." Dr.Rapadas Rapadasadministered
administered Sic
Sicat the
the Mini
Mini Mental
Mental Status
Status
Examination (MMSE). On aminat ion (MMSE). O n the t he MMSE,
MMSE, a score
core of 30 is
is pperfect,, while
while a score of 23 or
or les
less
suggests an individual "may have signs of dementia signs of dementia and
and poor
poor cognitive skills." Id. Sic cognitive skills." Sicat scored a
30/30. Id.
perfect 30/30. Id
legal terminology terminology and and concepts.
concepts. This
This isis consistent
consistent with
with what
what thethe Court-provided Court-provided interpreter interpreter relayed to the the Court Court at
at
April 12, the April 12, 2024 2024 hearing:
hearing: that
that Sic at "understands
Sicat "understandssomesomeof the stuff;
of the stuff, what he doesn't doesn't understand
understand isis some
some of the
the
technical terms."Min. technical terms." Min. Entry, Entry, 10:10
l0:l0 AM (Apr. 12, 12, 2024).
2024). The People have The People have not
not objected
objected toto Sicat's
Sicat's use
use of an
an
interpreter. See id. interpreter. See id at at l0:14
10:14AM
AM(Prosecutor:
(Prosecutor:"[Sic at] can "[Sicat] furnishedan canbebefurnished interpreter, ififhe an interpreter, he needs needs it, for
for the
the technical
technical
terms."). terms."). .
3 3 On April 12, 12, 2024, Sicat's
Sicat's counsel
counsel proffered
proffered that
that Sic
Sicat had dismissed
dismissed the the Tagalog Tagalog interpreter
interpreter from the forensic evaluation because because Sicatatknew
knew that
thatthis
this particular
particularinterpreter
interpreterhas
hasa aclose
closepersonal
personalrelationship
relationshipwith
withone
one of
of the
the
primary primary witnesses witnesses in this case.
case. Sicat's
Sicat's counsel
counsel asserted
asserted that when Sic at told Dr. Rapadas Sicat that he Rapadas that he did not need need anan
interpreter, this was interpreter, this was a "white lie,"
lie;"instead,
instead,according
accordingtotocounsel,
counsel,the
thereal
realreason
reasonSic at dismissed
Sicat dismissed the
the interpreter
interpreter was
because of his personal because of personalconcern concernwith
withthat
thatindividual.
individual.Min.
Min. Entry
Entryatat10:18
10:18AM AM (Apr.
(Apr. 12,
12, 2024).
4
DECISION AND ORDER RE: COMPETENCY COMPETENCY ISSUES AND SECOND SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION EVALUATION
CF0487-20, CF0487-20, People People of
ofGuam v. Edward
Edward Ace
Ace Sic at aka
Sicat aka Kim
Kim
Based on his his observations
observations of
ofSic
Sicat, Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas concluded that Sic at "does Sicat "does not have a
severe mental disorder that would directly cause him to to lack
lack substantial
substantial mental capacity to know
understand what he was doing, or understand doing, to know know or
or understand
understand that
that his conduct was wrongful, or to
control his actions, actions, under any circumstances in his his past
past and present
present behaviors." Rapadas Report
Rapadas also
at 6. Dr. Rapadas also concluded concluded that
that Sic at was
Sicat was competent to be proceeded proceeded against
against at
at present.
present.
After er citing ing too U.S. Sup Supreme Court
Court pprecedent
recedent on
on t the ue, Dr
he isissue, DrRap adas op Rapadas ined t hat
opined thatSic at
Sicat
s] to possess "seem[s] possess the ability ability to consult
consult [with
[ his
his attorney]
attorney] with
with aa good
good degree
degreeof.
of rational
rational
"seems capable
understanding" and "seems capable of of testifying appropriately."
appropriately." Id.
Id at
at 5.
Notwithstanding his competency competency findings,
findings, Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas did
didnote
notethat
that Sic
Sicat appeared to be
"suffering some level "suffering some level of depression, depression, anxiety,
anxiety, and
and feelings
feelingsof
ofbeing
beingtargeted."
targeted."Id
Id. at 6. He also
also
noted that Sicat at had
had self-reported
self-reported the
the following:
following:
way [Sic
The way [Sicat]
at] was
was being treated
treated [at home] resulted resulted in
in severe
severe panic
panic attacks,
attacks,
hyperventilation, and being hyperventilation, and being unable unable to
to breathe.
breathe. This
This often
often results
results in
in him being
frozen and sometimes frozen and unable to sometimes unable to move oror accomplish accomplish anything. This made him anything. This
seek medicationion which which he ssaid was
was pprimarily
rimarily an
an ant i-anx iet y pill.
anti-anxiety ill. He
He did not
mention if if he was currently receiving receiving any
any psychotherapy
psychotherapyservices
services.
Id. d at e3.
c. C. Competency Heari_ngs and Testimony Hearings and Testimony
On March 14,
14, 2024, the Court held a Competency Hearing and received testimony from 2024, the
Dr. Rapadas. Rapadas. On direct examination by the People, Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas reaffirmed his conclusions conclusions that
did not Sicatat did not lack lack substantial capacity at substantial capacity at the the time of the
time of the alleged
alleged offenses
offenses and
and that
that Sic at was
Sicat
currently competent competent to be proceeded against.
On cross-examination, Sicat's counsel counsel challenged
challenged Dr.
Dr. Rapadas's
Rapadas's conclusion
conclusionthat
thatSic
Sicat is
currently competent to be proceeded proceeded against
against at trial.
trial. Sicat's counsel argued that Dr. Rapadas had
noted that Sicatat has has an
an anxiety
anxiety disorder
disorder and
and medicates
medicates for that disorder, disorder, but Dr.
Dr. Rapadas did not
5
DECISION AND ORDER RE: COMPETENCY COMPETENCY ISSUES AND SECOND SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION CF0487-20, CF0487-20, People People of
ofGuam
Guam v. Edward
Edward Ace
Ace Siccat
at aka
aka Kim
Kim
sufficiently explore sufficiently explore those those issues
issues in forensic evaluation.
in his forensic evaluation. Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas explained
explained that the
the
references in his report to to Sicat's anxiety and medication only reflected Sicat's Sicat's self-reporting,
self-reporting, not
Dr. Rapadas's Rapadas's personal personal diagnosis
diagnosis of
ofSic at. Min.
Sicat. Min. Entry at 2:52 PM (Mar. 14, 14, 2024). Dr. Rapadas
further explained further explained that that since
since he [and] not his doctor,"
he was "not [Sicat's] clinician [and] doctor," he could not
agree" whether "100% agree" whether Sicat's Sicat's self-reporting
self-reporting was accurate. Id.
was accurate. Instead, Dr.
Id Instead, Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas explained
explained
that he had noted Sicat's self-reported self-reported symptoms and diagnoses in his report only "for context,"
and that in any any case
case "a
"a diagnosis
diagnosis doesn't
doesn't necessarily
necessarily mean [in]competency." Id.
mean [in]competency." at 4:44 PM.
Id at
Dr. Rapadas did note that that Sic at appeared
Sicat appeared to
to be
be "anxious"
"anxious" during the forensic evaluation.
Id. atat2:47 2:47 PM.
PM. Despite
Despitethis,
this, Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas found
foundthat
thatSic
Sicat "was still able to talk to to me
me and tell me
about what's what's happening, happening, what's
what's going
going on,"
on," and
andthat
thatwhile
while Sic
Sicat "was pretty shaken, we were able
to ttalk tthrough . " Id.
ough it." Id a at
t 2 2:52
:5 2 PPM.
M . S tStill,
ill, Dr . RRapadas
Dr. a p a da s conceded
conceded t ha t dur
that ing t the
during he f or ens
forensic
evaluation, he didn't didn't think
think specifically
specifically about
about whether
whether Sic "was going to freeze up in court," or Sicat "was
experience symptoms. Id.
similar symptoms.
experience similar Id at at 2:50
2:50 PM.
PM. Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas agreed,
agreed, as
as aa hypothetical
hypothetical matter,
matter, to
counsel's suggestion "that if if somebody's
somebody's frozen
frozen ...
... that
thatititisispossible,
possible, [the
[the defendant]
defendant] could be
unable to communicate with defense counsel." Id. atat 3:03 3:03 PM.
PM. However,
However, Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas refused
refused to
conclude that this this would happen in this case, case; he insisted
insisted that it would be "overgeneralizing" to
ma ke tthat ha t aassumption, s s ump t ion, as
a s "[w]hen
"[w]hen you
you ha ve aanxiety,
nx iet y, it does n't [a
doesn't lwa ys ] mea n you [always] you ca nnot cannot
communicate." Id.
Id atat 2:50-51
2:50-51 PM.
PM. Thus,
Thus, Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas testified
testified that could not "make aa blanket blanket
statement" that Sicat statement" that Sic at"couldn't "couldn't talk
talkto,"
to,"or
or "couldn't
"couldn't work
work with,"
with," defense counsel. Id.
defense counsel. Id at
at 2:55
2:55
PM.
Dr. Rapadas conceded that he did not review Sicat's Sicat's medical
medical records
records before or during the
forensic evaluation. Id. forensic evaluation. Id at at 2:54 PM. This was in
in part
part because the Guam Behavioral Behavioral Health and
Wellness Wellness Center Center did did not
not have
have any
any records
records for Sicat. See
for Sic See Rapadas Report at 2.
2. Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas Could
could
6
I
DECISION AND ORDER RE: COMPETENCY COMPETENCY ISSUES AND
AND SECOND
SECOND FORENSIC
FORENSIC EVALUATION
EVALUATION
CF0487-20, CF0487-20, People People of
ofGuam
Guam v. Edward
Edward Ace
Ace Sic at aka
Sicat aka Kim
Kim
not recall whether Sicat whether Sic at presented
presented him,
him, or offered to present him, with any any other
other medical
medicalrecords
records.
Id. atat2:53 2:53 PM.
PM. Instead,
Instead, Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas accepted
accepted Sicat's
Sicat's self-representation self-representation that he has an anxiety
on an
disorder and takes Bromazepam on an as-needed as-needed basis
basis for
for anxiety.
anxiety. Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas testified
testified that he
he explained
was familiar with Bromazepam, which he explained isis prescribed prescribed as
as aa "central
"central nervous system
system
relaxant" relaxant" for for people
people suffering
suffering from
from anxiety.
anxiety. Id. at 2:53
Id at 2:53 PM.
PM. Dr.
Dr. Rapadas
Rapadas explained
explained that
that from
from
can have
what he knows, Bromazepam can have the the side
side effect of malting
effect of making someone "drowsy"
"drowsy" and
and that
that itit
an impact
"might" have an impact on on cognitive
cognitive functions.
functions. Id. at 3:08
Id at 3:08 PM.
PM. He
He later
later suggested
suggested there were
alternative medicines, alternative medicines, such such as
as Zoloft,
Zoloft, that
that could
could be prescribed
prescribed for someone who who experiences
experiences
heavy side effects effects from
from Bromazepam.
Bromazepam. Id. at 4:42 PM.
Id at
the initial
Because the initial hearing ran late, the Court continued continued the
the hearing
hearing to
to April
April 12,
12, 2024. At
the later hearing, Court that hearing, Sicat's counsel argued to the Court that Sicat's Sicat's apparent
apparent anxiety
anxiety disorder,
disorder, and
his use of Bromazepam, could lead him to to freeze
freeze up
up at
at trial,
trial, and therefore render him unable to
i s t inn hhis ddefense.
assist ef en e. SSicat's i ca co u
counsel aargued,
r , iin ect t that n efeffect, h a DDr.
r . RRapadas's
a p a d a s ' s co mp et en competency
determination was insufficient determination was because itit did insufficient because did not fully fully account
account for
for that
that possibility,
possibility, and that
that
further evaluation was further evaluation was needed.
needed. The
The Court asked Sicat's counsel whether he was advocating advocating for
Sicat at to to be
be sent
sent back
back to
to Dr.
Dr. Rapadas,
Rapadas, specifically;
specifically, counsel
counsel appeared
appeared to
to answer in the affirmative.
Min. Entry at at 10:25-10:27
10:25-10:27 AM (Apr. 12, 2024).44 The (Apr. 12, The People did not object to additional forensic
4 4 THE COURT: ...
THE .. you're you'resaying,
saying,ifif[Dr.
[Dr.Rapadas]
Rapadas]was
wastotobe giventhat
begiven thatinformation, information,he
hecould
couldevaluate
evaluate ititand
and maybe
maybe
have have aa different different....
DEFENSE COUNSEL:
COUNSEL: Sure. Sure.
THE COURT: THE COURT:...... or or more
moreinformation
information forfor
thethe
Court,
Court,totoassist
assisthe
theCourt,
Court,isisthat...'?
that...?
DEFENSE COUNSEL:
COUNSEL:Yes, Yes,your
yourhonor,
honor,and and based
based onon [Dr.
[Dr. Rapadas's]
Rapadas's] testimony,
testimony, he said ... we'reasking .. we're asking the
the
witness, who is the witness, who the only only expert,
expert, to
to look
look into
into that[.]
that[.]
Min. Entry at 10:26-10:27 AM (Apr.
(Apt. 12, 2024).
2024).
7
i
DECISION AND ORDER RE: COMPETENCY COMPETENCY ISSUES AND SECOND SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION EVALUATION
CF0487-20, People People of
ofGuam v.
v. EdwardAce
Ace Sic aka Kim
Sicat aka Kim
5
evaluation, though they argued that it was unnecessary as a matter of law.
law.5 Id at 10:31
Id. 10:31 AM. The
Court then took the matter under under advisement.
DISCUSSIQN_ DISCUSSION
A. Sicat
atDid
Did Not
Not Lack
Lack Substantial
Substantial Capacity
Capacitv at
at the
the Time
Time of the Alleged Offenses
addresses Sicat's capacity at the The Court first addresses the time of the alleged of the alleged offenses.
ojknses. Guam law
provides that "a person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of ofsuch conduct, as
of mental illness, disease or defect, he lacked a result of lacked substantial substantial capacity to know or understand
what he was doing, or to know or or understand
understand that his conduct was wrongful, or to control his
actions." actions." 99 GCA GCA §§ 7.16 (emphasis added).
7.16 (emphasis added).
Dr. Rapadas Dr. adas opined
ined in his
his writ
written rep
report tthat Sic
Sicatat "does
"does not
not have
have a ssevere
evere ment
mental
disorder that would directly cause him to lack substantial mental capacity to know or understand
was doing,
what he was doing, tto know know or
or underst and tthat
understand hat his conduct was his conduct was wrongful, wrongful, or
or tto
o cont rol his
control his
actions, actions, under any circumstances circumstances in his past past and present
present behaviors."
behaviors." Rapadas Report at 6. Dr.
Rapadas's a d a s ' s testimony es t i mo n y at
a t thee M ar
March 114,
4 , 22024
0 2 4 CCompetency
o mp et en cy HHearing
ea r i n g r ea ffir
reaffirmed tthis
h i pprior
rior
conclusion. The Court finds Dr. Rapadas's testimony on on this
this point credible and logical based on
the specific observations Dr. Rapadas made made of
of Sic forensic evaluation.
Sicat during the forensic
"Mental illness,
illness, disease
disease or defect,
defect, precluding
precluding responsibility, responsibility, is an
an affirmative
affirmative defense
defense
which the which the defendant defendant must
must prove
prove by
by aa preponderance
preponderance of
ofthe
the evidence."
evidence." 99GCA
GCA§ §7.22(a).
7.22(a). Sic at
Sicat
has presented no evidence evidence to
to overcome
overcome Dr.
Dr. Rapadas's
Rapadas'stestimony.
testimony. Sic at has therefore Sicat therefore failed to
5 5 The People People argued
argued that
that further
further clarification
clarificationfrom
fromDr. Dr.Rapadas
Rapadaswas wasunnecessary unnecessarybecause
because even
evenassuming
assuming Sic at
Sicat
suffers from from "debilitating
"debilitatinganxiety
anxietyattacks,"
attacks,"such
such ailments
ailments (and
(and the
the medication
medication prescribed
prescribed for such
such ailments)
ailments) do not
affect aa defendant's defendant's competency
competency to to be
be proceeded against.Min.
proceeded against. Min. Entry Entry at at 10:14-10:16
10:14-10:16AM AM (Apr.
(Apr. 12,
12, 2024).
2024). The
People suggested People suggested that should should Sicatatsuffer
suffer from
from a panic
panic attack
attack at trial, the
at trial, the proper remedy remedy would be to dismiss dismiss him
from from the the courtroom until
until the
the panic
panic attack
attacksubsided.
subsided.Id. Id at
at 10:15
10:15AM.
AM. The People
People also
also requested
requested to submit
submit a brief on
other courts how other have resolved courts have similar issues.
resolved similar issues.Id.[al at at 10:34
10:34 AM.
AM. The
The Court
Court declined
declined toto order
order briefing
briefing atat that
that time
because because it wanted to to first determine determine whether therethere was was a need for additional forensic forensic evaluation,
evaluation, although
although the the Court
Court
did not rule rule out
out the
thepossibility
possibility of
of ordering
ordering briefing
briefing at a later date.
date.Id.
Id at 10:40-10:41
10:40-10:41 AM.AM.
8
i
DECISION AND ORDER RE: COMPETENCY COMPETENCY ISSUES AND SECOND SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION PeopleofofGuam
CF0487-20, People Guam v.v. Edward EdwardAce
AceSweat
Sicat aka
aka Kim
Kim
meet his meet his burden burden under
under 99 GCA
GCA§§7.7 .16. The
The Court
Court therefore
therefore finds
finds that
that Sic did not
S icat did not lack
lack substantial
substantial
of his alleged
capacity at the time of offenses. 6 alleged offenses.6
B. B. The
The Court
CourtMakes
MakesNoNoFinding
FindingAbout
AboutSic;1t'§_Present
Sicat's Present Competency, Competency, as There
as There
Remains Remains aa Question
Question to
to be
be Resolved
Whether or Whether or not
not aa defendant
defendant lacked substantial capacity at the lacked substantial the time time of the
the offense,
ojknse, there is
a separate question as to to whether the defendant is incompetent to be proceeded proceeded against trial.
against at trial.
"A defendant "A defendant is is incompetent
incompetent to
to be
be proceeded
proceeded against
against in
in aa criminal
criminal action
action if,
if, as
as a result of
of mental
illness, disease, or illness, disease, or defect, defect, he
he is unable
unable (1) to understand the nature of of the
the proceedings,
proceedings, (2)
(2) to
assist and cooperate with counsel, (3) to follow the evidence, evidence, or
or (4)
(4) to
to participate
participate in his defense.
99 G CA §§7 7.37(a)(l)-(4).
GCA .3 7 (a)(1 )-(4 ). In In general, t he "t
general, the "test for
for comp ency tto sstand competency t ttrial is is whet
whether tthe
defendant has sufficient present ability sufficient present ability to to consult
consult with
with his
his lawyer
lawyer with a reasonable
reasonable degree of
of
rational understanding rational understanding and and whether
whether he
he has
has a rational as well as as aa factual
factual understanding
understanding of
of the
proceedings against him." People v.
v. Guerrero,
Guerrero, 2001 Guam
Guam 19 ~ 33
191] 33 (quoting Boat
Boag v.v. Raines,
Raines, 769
F.2d 1341, 1341, 1343 1343 (9th Cir. 1985)),
1985)); see Dusky v. United States, States, 362 U.S. 400,
400,402 (1960).
Although the Court
Court respects
respects Dr.
Dr. Rapadas's
Rapadas's opinion
opinionthat
thatSic
Sicat is competent
competent to
to stand
stand trial,
trial,
the determination of competency determination of competency is ultimately ultimately committed to the Court.
Court. See United
United States
States v.
v.
Weston, Weston, 36 F.Supp.2d 7, 9 (D.D.C.
F.Supp.2d 7, (D.D.C. 1999) ("[I]t is 1999) ("[I]t is the
he dutyy of the Dist rict Court District Court to
t o make a
specific judicial determination of of competence
competence to
to stand
stand trial,
trial, rather than accept psychiatric advice
as determinative determinative on this issue.").
issue."). Having considered all the evidence before before it,
it, the
the Court
Court finds
finds
t hat a t ffurther u r t h er i n formation
o r ma t i o n is
i s necessary
eces s a r y before
ef o r e ma king
i n g aa ddetermination
et er mi n a t i o n oof
f SSicat's
i ca t ' s cu r r en t
current
competency competency to stand trial. As Dr.
trial. As Dr. Rapadas conceded, he Rapadas conceded, he did not review review Sicat's
Sicat's full
full medical
medical
66 This This finding finding does
does not
not preclude
preclude Sicatatfrom
frommaking diminished capacity making aa diminished capacity argument argument at trial
trial if
if he
he so
so chooses.
chooses. 99 GCA
GCA
§§ 7.43(g), 7.43(g); see People v. Jung, 2001 Guam 15 v. Jung, ,r 31 15 'll 31 ("Diminished
("Diminished capacity is a concept concept separate and distinct from the defense defense ofof insanity."), State v.
insanity."); State v. Gough, 768 P.2d 1028,1028, 1029-30 1029-30 (Wash.
(Wash. Ct.
Ct. App.
App. 1989)
1989)(explaining
(explaining distinctions
distinctions
between insanity and diminished capacity).
9
O
DECISION AND ORDER ORDER RE: COMPETENCY
COMPETENCY ISSUES AND
AND SECOND
SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION EVALUATION
CF0487-20, People People of
ofGuam
Guam v. Edward
Edward Ace
Ace Sic at aka
Sicat aka Kim
Kim
history his t or y prior r ior too or
or dur
during the f or
ing t he forensic evaluation.
ens ic eva lua t ion. His His conclus ion aabout
conclusion b out SSicat's ica t ' s ppresent
r es ent
competency is therefore incomplete for the Court's Court's purposes,
purposes, as it does not account for whether
conditions, and/or
Sicat's mental conditions, and/or his his use
use of
of Bromazepam,
Bromazepam, may
may render
render him
him "drowsy" or "frozen"
at trial, and thus unable to assist in his defense.
Under these Under these circumstances, circumstances, the
the Court
Court will
will exercise
exercise its
its power
power under
under 99 GCA
GCA§§7.25(b)7
7.25(b) 7 to
to
evaluation, to be performed order a second forensic evaluation, performed by by another
another examiner.
examiner. Although
AlthoughSic
Sicat did not
object to to being
being sent back to
to Dr.
Dr. Rapadas,
Rapadas, itit would
would be more helpful to the Court Court to receive a
second eco n d opinion i n i o n from
r o m an ex er who hhas examiner a nnot
o t aalready
l r ea d fformed
or aan
n oopinion
p i n i o n aabout
b o u t SSicat's
i ca t '
competency.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court ORDERS CSFC to schedule aa second second forensic
forensic evaluation
evaluationfor
for Sic
Sicat by another
who shall
examiner, who shall (1) evaluate the (1) evaluate the medical
medical history
historythat
that Sic
Sicat provides, if any, and (2) evaluate
current medication
Sicat's current medication regimen, regimen, ifif any.
any. The
The examiner
examiner shall
shall thereafter
thereafter produce
produce aa written
written report
addresses whether Sicat's which addresses medical history, Sicat's medical history, and/or and/or his current
current medication
medication regimen,
regimen,
render render him him incompetent
incompetent to
to be
be proceeded against under 9 GCA proceeded against GCA §§7.37(a)(1)-(4).
7.37(a)(l)-(4). In other
whether Sic
words, whether Sicat at is
is unable,
unable, as
as aa result
result of
of mental
mental illness, disease, or defect, to (1) understand
the nature nature of the proceedings, (2) assist proceedings, (2) and cooperate assist and cooperatewith
with counsel,
counsel, (3)
(3) follow the
the evidence,
evidence,
and/or (4) to participate in his defense.
77 "Whenever, "Whenever, in in the the opinion
opinion of court, any other expert evidence concerning the defendant's mental of the court, mental condition condition is,
willbe or will be required required by
bythe
the court
court ...
...the
thecourt shallappoint
courtshall appointone
oneorormore
moresuch
suchexperts
expertsto
toexamine
examine the
the defendant
defendant and to
report report upon upon his
his mental
mental condition
condition as the court as the court may
may direct."
direct." 99 GCA
GCA §§ 7.25(b)
7.25(b) (emphasis
(emphasis added),
added); see People of
of Guam
v. Kyle Richard Murray, Murray, Criminal Case No. CF0702-22, Case No. CF0702-22, Dec.Dec, && Order at 17 (Nov. 16,16, 2023), 2023); People of
of Guam v.
Stan Stan Matthew Ricalde, Criminal Case Matthew Rica/de, Case No. CFOl49-22, Dec. & Order CF0149-22, Dec. Order at at 4 (Aug.
(Aug. 30,
30, 2022),
2022); People ofof Guam
Guam v.v.
William William Meno Meno Perez,
Perez, Criminal Case
Case No.No. CF0445-16,
CF0445-16, Dec.
Dec. & Order at 2-4 (Aug. 23, 2017).
10
DECISION AND ORDER RE: COMPETENCY ISSUES AND SECOND FORENSIC EVALUATION CF0487-20, People People of
ofGuam
Guam v.
v. Edward
EdwardAce
Ace Sic at aka
Sicat aka Kim
Kim
The Court Court further
further ORDERS Sicatat to to bring
bring to
to his
his second
second forensic
forensic evaluation
evaluation any
documentation of his documentation of his medical medical and
and medication
medication history
history that
that isis relevant
relevant to
to this
this inquiry,
inquiry, and
and Sicat's
Sicat's
attorney attorney shall provide aa copy shall provide copy of of all such documentation all such documentation to to the
the People.
People. See
See 99 GCA
GCA §§ 7.25(f).
7.25(±).
The Court The Court shall shall issue a separate
separate order to Client Services order to Services and Family Counseling Counseling for a
second forensic evaluation second forensic evaluation to to be
be performed
performed on
on the
the limited
limited issue
issue of Sicat's competency competency to be
proceeded against at trial.
ORDERED : - - JUL SO ORDERED: 111 ------
1 2024
202~
H O A. GU RREZ Ju e,§uberior'Cou*r1f of Gua