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· 2 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).
3 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
4 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
5 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).
6 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.
7 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).
8 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).
9 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