People v. Susuico

Opinion

FI LED CLERK OF COURT 2025 SEP 15 PH ~: 31J 2 SUPERIOR COURT 3 OF GU,ll.f\.1 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0490-24 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) GPD Report Nos. 24-14701/24-1487 4/24-14884 ) 8 vs. ) ) DECISION & ORDER 9 ) RE:DEFENDANTFREDDYCUEVAS SUSUICO'S MOTION IN LIM/NE TO ) EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF 10 FREDDY CUEVAS SUSUICO, ) MISCONDUCT COMMITTED DURING DOB: 10/27/1976 11 ) PRETRIAL DETENTION AND PRETRIAL RELEASE 12 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _D_e_fe_n_d_an_t_. ~~ 13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on June 17, 2025, for a 14

Motion Hearing. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico ("Defendant") was present with counsel 15

16 Attorney Heather Quitugua. Assistant Attorney General Grant Olan was present for the People of

17 Guam ("People"). At this Motion Hearing, the parties were before the court to address 18 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial 19 Detention and Pretrial Release, which was filed on April 28, 2025. Following the hearing, the 20

21 court took the matter under advisement pursuant to Supreme Court of Guam Administrative Rule

22 06-001, CVR 7.l(e)(6)(A) and CRl.1 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. Having 23 duly considered the parties' briefings, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the court now issues 24 this Decision and Order DENYING Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to 25 Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release with 26

27 respect to the Defendant's prior bad acts in CF0492-22.

28 \\

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page I of 14 BACKGROUND

2 On July 19, 2024, the People charged the Defendant via Indictment for the following

3 offenses: (1) Three Counts of COMPLICITY TO COMMIT BURGLARY (As a 2nd Degree 4 Felony) with a Notice of Commission of a Felony while on Felony Release; and (2) Three Counts 5 of THEFT BY RECEIVING (As a 2nd Degree Felony). See generally Indictment (July 19, 2024). 6

7 On October 29, 2024, the People subsequently filed a Superseding Indictment for the same

8 offenses,but also attaching the Notice of Commission of a Felony while on Felony Release to the

9 Second Charge of THEFT BY RECEIVING (As a 2nd Degree Felony). See generally 10 Superseding Indictment (Oct. 29, 2024). II In anticipation for Jury Selection and Trial, which was previously scheduled for June 16, 12

13 2025, the Defendant filed seven motions. On January 6, 2025, the Defendant filed his Motion to

14 Suppress Evidence, including all allegedly involuntary statements made by the Defendant to law 15 enforcement; and all unrecorded (through video or audio) statements made by the Defendant to 16 law enforcement. See Mot. Suppress (Jan. 6, 2025). The People filed its Opposition in response 17 to the Motion to Suppress on January 17, 2025. See generally Ppl.'s Opp'n Suppress (Jan. 17, 18

19 2025).

20 The Defendant later filed the following motions on April 28, 2025: (1) Defendant Freddy 21 Cuevas Susuico's Motion to Dismiss Indictment; (2) Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion 22 in Limine to Prohibit Defendant's Statements at Trial; (3) Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's 23

24 Motion in Limine to Exclude Mug Shots; (4) Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in

25 Limine to Exclude Any Prosecution Expert from Testifying; (5) Defendant Freddy Cuevas 26 Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Any Misconduct Committed During Pretrial 27 Detention and Pretrial Release ("Motion in Limine"); and (6) Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico' s 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 2 of 14 Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Not Discovered to Defendant by Law Enforcement as

2 of April 14, 2025.

3 Despite proper service that was effectuated for these motions in limine, the People had 4 filed no responses as of the Motion Hearing, which was previously scheduled for May 28, 2025. 5 As a sanction for the People's failure to timely file responses to the Defendant's motions in limine, 6

7 the court barred any oral argument form the People at the continued Motion Hearing scheduled

8 for June 17, 2025. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 10:29:46 - 32:04AM (May 28, 2025). However, the 9 court permitted the People leave of court to file late responses to the Defendant's motions no later 10 than close of business on June 4, 2025. Jd. 1 11 In accordance with the court's new deadline, the People filed the following responses to 12

13 the Defendant's motions mentioned above: (1) People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to

14 Dismiss Indictment; (2) People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Prohibit Use of 15 Defendant's Statements at Trial; (3) People's Non-Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine 16 to Exclude Mug Shots; (4) People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion inLimine to Exclude Any 17 Prosecution Expert from Testifying; (5) People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to 18

19 Exclude Evidence of Any Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release

20 ("People's Opposition"); and (6) People's Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to 21 Exclude All Evidence Not Discovered to Defendant by Law Enforcement as of April 14, 2025. 22

24 1 If a motion is untimely filed, the court may allow the filing of motions beyond the time limit previously set by the 25 court. See 8 GCA § 65.45 ("Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to§ 65.15, or prior to any extension thereof made by the 26 court, shall constitute a waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver."). Despite the People's failure to timely file responses in this case, the court still has an obligation to analyze the merits of the 27 issue before it. In Petition of Quitugua v. Flores, the Supreme Court of Guam held that "the failure to file a written opposition, the filing of a notice non-opposition, or the disregard of untimely filed papers" does not relieve the lower 28 court of its obligation to consider the merits of a motion before rendering its decision. Petition of Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Guam 19 ifif 27-28.

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 3 of 14 In his Motion in Limine, the Defendant argues that evidence of the Defendant's

2 misconduct during pretrial detention or release should be excluded as irrelevant; unduly

3 prejudicial or confusing to the jury; or as character evidence to punish or cau se the jury to base 4 its decision on something other than the crimes in this case. See Def. 's Mot. Limine Misconduct 5 (Apr. 28, 2025). In response, the People indicated that their intent to potentially use any evidence 6

7 of the Defendant's misconduct would be to prove his intent, plan, knowledge, or absence of

8 mistake or accident to commit the burglary and theft in this case. See Ppl. 's Opp'n Limine 9 Misconduct (June 4, 2025). 10 On June 17, 2025, all parties were present before the court to address the Defendant's 11 pending motions in this case. At the Motion Hearing, the Defendant referenced one prior and two 12

13 subsequent criminal cases that he was charged in, which he believes should be excluded under

14 Guam Rule of Evidence 404(b): CF0491-22; CF0492-22; CF0189-25. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 15 2:59: 18 - 3:03:l0PM (June 17, 2025). After hearing arguments on all motions, the court took the 16 Motion in Limine under advisement. 17 DISCUSSION 18

19 In his Motion in Limine, the Defendant seeks exclusion of "any evidence of misconduct

20 by Mr. Susuico, regardless of whether charged, while on pretrial release and during pretrial 21 detention" under Guam Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. Def.'s Mot. Limine Misconduct at 1 22 (Apr. 28, 2025). At the Motion Hearing, the Defendant also argued that this evidence is irrelevant 23

24 under Guam Rule of Evidence 401 and should be excluded. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 2:59:18 -

25 3:03:l0PM (June 17, 2025). Therefore, the court will review the Defendant's arguments for 26 exclusion under GRE 401, 404(b), and 403. 27 \\ 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 4 of 14 A. Defendant Susuico's prior bad acts is relevant under GRE 401.

2 First, the Defendant's prior bad acts must be deemed relevant under GRE 401 for the court

3 to determine its admissibility under GRE 404(b) and 403. Under GRE 401, evidence is relevant 4 if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 5 determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." 6

7 Guam R. Evid. 401.

8 While not argued in his written Motion in Limine, the Defendant indicated at the Motion

9 Hearing that his prior bad acts in CF0492-22 and CFO 189-25 is not relevant. See Mot. Hr' g Mins. 10 at 3:18:50-22:30PM (June 17, 2025). With respect to his 2025 criminal matter, the Defendant 11 argued that it is not relevant, because his subsequent acts in CF0189-25 do not show that the 12

13 criminal conduct in this 2024 case were more or less likely to have occurred. See Mot. Hr' g Mins.

14 at 2:59: 18 - 3 :03: 10PM (June 17, 2025). 15 Although denying the opportunity to make oral arguments at the Motion Hearing for 16 reasons stated earlier, the court permitted the People to file an untimely response to the Motion 17 in Limine. For purposes of GRE 404(b), the People state that it will be offering the bad acts within 18

19 the Defendant's two criminal cases, CF0492-22 and CF0l 89-25, "to prove the Defendant's intent,

20 plan, knowledge, and absence of mistake or absence to commit burglary and theft in the instant 21 case." Ppl.'s Opp'n Misconduct at 2. 22 In CF0492-22, the Defendant was charged in relevant part with: thirteen counts of THEFT 23

24 BY RECEIVING (As a 2nd Degree Felony) under the first charge; eight counts of THEFT BY

25 RECEIVING (As a 2nd Degree Felony) under the second charge; and two counts of BURGLARY

26 (As a 2nd Degree Felony) under the third charge. See People v. Susuico, CF0492-22 (Superseding 27

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 5 of 14 Indictment at 1-8 (Oct. 29, 2024)). 2 In CF0189-25, the Defendant was charged with BURGLARY

2 TO A MOTOR VEHICLE (As a 2nd Degree Felony) and ATTEMPTED THEFT (As a Petty

3 Misdemeanor). See People v. Susuico, CF0189-25 (Indictment at 1-8 (Mar. 24, 2025)). 4 The standard for determining whether evidence is relevant under 401 is low; simply asking 5 whether the evidence has something to do with the claims or defenses in the case. Similar to 6

7 CF0492-22 and CF0189-25, the Defendant was charged in this case with theft-related offenses.

8 The court finds that the Defendant's theft-related acts within CF0492-22 and CF0189-25 make it

9 more or less probable that he committed the theft-related offenses charged in this case. Therefore, 10 the Defendant's acts that formed the basis of his charges in CF0492-22 and CF0189-25 are 11 relevant under GRE 401. 12

13 B. Defendant Susuico's prior bad acts are admissible under GRE 402 and 404(b).

14 Here, the rules for the court to review are GRE 402 and 404(b ). GRE 402 states that: 15 All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the 16 Constitution of the United States, by the Organic Act of Guam, by the laws of Guam, by these Rules or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of Guam 17 pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. 18 Guam R. Evid. 402. In this case, the Defendant argues that GRE 404(b) is the other rule of 19 evidence that would prevent this relevant evidence's admissibility at trial. GRE 404(b) states the 20 following purposes where evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts are admissible at trial: 21

22 (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in 23 conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as 24 proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the 25 prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the 26 general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. 27

2 28 Although the Superseding Indictment contains a total of six (6) charges in CF0492-22, the court will only focus on the theft-related offenses.

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 6 of 14 Guam R. Evid. 404(b ). Under this evidentiary rule, "[e]vidence of other crimes or acts is

2 admissible ... 'except where it tends to prove only criminal disposition,"' People v. Sablan, 2023

3 Guam 4 ,r 68 (quoting United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation 4 omitted)). 5 As of the Motion Hearing on June 17, 2025, the People filed no notice of intent to use 6

7 404(b) evidence. However, the People filed its Notice of Intent to Use 404(b) Evidence ("People's

8 Notice") on August 18, 2025, while this Motion in Limine was under advisement. In regards to 9 whether notice is considered reasonable, the Defendant states that if the People are aware of

information, and it is within its possession for a long period of time, it is not reasonable to submit 11 notice of intent to use 404(b) evidence weeks before trial. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 2:59:18 - 12

13 3 :03: 10PM (June 17, 2025).

14 While the Defendant reminds the court of his determination of what constitutes as 15 reasonable notice, the court notes that it vacated the most recent trial date to address the 16 Defendant's pending motions. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at l0:17:50AM (May 28, 2025). Without a 17 trial date set, the court finds that the People's Notice is reasonable. Should the Defendant need 18

19 more time to review such 404(b) evidence and file the appropriate motions relating to it, he may

20 do so in anticipation of trial. 21 Despite the People's Notice not being filed at the time of the Motion Hearing, the 22 Defendant recognized how common it was for the People to bolster a case with prior bad acts of 23

24 a defendant. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 2:59:18 - 3:03:lOPM (June 17, 2025). However, the

25 Defendant argues that "such evidence should be excluded under Rule 404(b) of the Guam Rules 26 of Evidence, as its primary purpose would be to provide the jury's instinct to punish or otherwise 27

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 7 of 14 cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the crimes at issue in this case." Def.' s

2 Mot. Limine Misconduct at 1.

3 In the People's Notice, the People state its intent to introduce evidence of the Defendant's 4 crimes, wrongs, or other acts in CF0492-22 "to prove his motive, intent, plan, knowledge, or 5 absence of mistake or accident to commit Theft by Receiving (as a Second-Degree Felony)." 6

7 Ppl. 's Notice at 1 (Aug. 18, 2025). It is noteworthy that the People indicate that it "will not solicit

8 evidence that the Defendant was criminally charged for the Rule 404(b) evidence, unless the

9 defense opens the door for that information to come in." Ppl. 's Notice at 4. Because the People

only provide notice with respect to the Defendant's acts in CF0492-22 in relation to the second II charge in this case only, the court will restrict its discussion in such way to determine whether 12

13 this evidence is admissible under GRE 404(b ).

14 To determine whether the Defendant's prior bad acts in CF0492-22 are admissible to 15 prove motive, intent, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident to commit THEFT BY 16 RECEIVING in this 2024, this court seeks guidance through the Guam Supreme Court's 17 application of the four-part test under United States v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 1994). 18

19 See People v. Sablan, 2023 Guam 4 ,r 69. "Evidence of a prior bad act is admissible under GRE

20 404(b) when the People establish 'that the evidence ( 1) proves a material element of the crime 21 currently charged; (2) is similar to the charged conduct; (3) is based on sufficient evidence; and 22 (4) is not too remote in time." Id. (quoting People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ,r,r 12, 47). 23

24 (1) Whether Defendant Susuico 's prior bad acts in CF0492-22 prove a material element of the second charge of THEFT BY RECEIVING in this case. 25 "To be admissible, the first Hinton element requires GRE 404(b) evidence to be probative 26

27 of a material element of the charged crime." Sablan, 2023 Guam 4 ,r 70 (citing People v. Palisoc,

28 2002 Guam 9 ,r 8; Hinton, 31 F.3d at 822). The Guam Supreme Court has previously found that

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 8 of 14 emphasizing multiple incidents, which followed a similar path as the incident at issue, makes an

2 element of the currently charged offense more likely to establish intent, plan, and lack of mistake

3 or accident. See People v. Taitano, 2015 Guam 33 ,i 31 (citing State v. Munoz, 932 A.2d 443, 451 4 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007) (internal quotations omitted); State v. Ondricek, 535 N.W.2d 872 (S.D. 5 1995) (internal citations omitted)). 6

7 In its Notice, the People argue that the Defendant's prior bad acts in CF0492-22 prove a

8 material element of the crime currently charged, because his prior bad acts "constitute the same

9 exact offense for which he is charged with in the instant matter." Ppl. 's Notice at 3. The court 10 agrees that prior bad acts relating to the THEFT BY RECEIVING charge in CF0492-22 could be II offered to prove a lack of mistake or accident that the Defendant intentionally received movable 12

13 property of another knowing it was stolen or believing that it was probably stolen in this case.

14 Therefore, the first Hinton element is met. 15 (2) Whether Defendant Susuico 's prior bad acts in CF0492-22 are similar to his conduct 16 as to the second charge of THEFT BY RECEIVING.

17 Under the second Hinton element, the court must determine whether there is a "sufficient[] 18 similar[ity]" between the Defendant's prior bad acts in CF0492-22 and the conduct charged in 19 this case. See Sablan, 2023 Guam 4 ,i 76 (quoting People v. John, 2016 Guam 41 ,i 24). 20

21 The People state that this element is met, because the Defendant's THEFT BY

22 RECEIVING charge in CF0492-22 constitutes the exact same offense for which he is charged

23 with in this case. See Ppl. 's Notice at 3. Upon review of the Indictment in this case, the Defendant 24 was charged on three separate occasions with "intentionally receiv[ing], retain[ing], or 25 dispos[ing] movable property of Finnegayan Elementary School, that is inventory of school 26

27 equipment, knowing that it had been stolen or believing that it has probably been stolen, the

28 amount involved exceeding $1,500.00, in violation of 9 GCA §§ 43.50(a) and 43.20(a)."

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 9 of 14 Indictment (July 19, 2024). 3 In CF0492-22, the Defendant was charged on twenty (20) separate

2 occasions with intentionally receiving, retaining, or disposing the movable property of a named

3 victim, in an amount exceeding $1,500.00, knowing that it had been stolen or believing that it has 4 probably been stolen in violation of 9 GCA §§ 43.50(a) and 43.20(a). See People v. Susuico, 5 CF0492-22 (Superseding Indictment at 1-8 (Oct. 29, 2024)). 6

7 Seeing that both offenses charged him in violation of the same statute, the court finds that

8 the Defendant's prior bad act of THEFT BY RECEIVING in CF0492-22 is sufficiently similar

9 to the conduct in this case. Therefore, the second Hinton element is met. 10 (3) Whether Defendant Susuico 's prior bad acts in CF0492-22 are based on sufficient 11 evidence. 12 As to the third Hinton element, evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under GRE 404(b) 13 if they are based on sufficient evidence. The court particularly reviews whether the People can 14 show that a jury could reasonably conclude that a prior crime occurred on a specified date and 15

16 that the defendant was the perpetrator. See Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ,r 26 (citing Huddleston v.

17 United States, 485 U.S. 681,689, 108 S. Ct. 1496, 1501 (1998)). 18 Here, the People state that "the fact that the Defendant was criminally charged via 19 indictment for the prior bad acts shows that they were based on sufficient evidence." Ppl. 's Notice 20

21 at 3. Upon the court's review, the Honorable Vernon P. Perez granted the dismissal of the

22 following counts attached to the Defendant's first and second charges of THEFT BY

23 RECEIVING (As a 2nd Degree Felony): First Charge of THEFT BY RECEIVING (As a 2nd 24 Degree Felony), Counts One, Two, and Four; and Second Charge of THEFT BY RECEIVING 25

3 27 "A person is guilty of theft ifhe intentionally receives, retains or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen or believing that it has probably been stolen. It is a defense to a charge of violating this Section 28 that the defendant received, retained or disposed of the property with intent to restore it to the owner." 9 GCA § 43.S0(a).

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 10 of 14 (As a 2nd Degree Felony) Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Five of the Superseding Indictment.

2 People v. Susuico, CF0492-22 (Dec. & Order at 4 (Apr. 23, 2025)). However, this court also

3 reviewed the three Motion Hearings before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez in CF0492-22 where 4 the two officers within Guam Police Department No. 22-19381 testified as to the Defendant's 5 incriminating statements and the physical altercation at issue in the Motion in Limine in this case 6

7 - GPD Officers Donny Pangelinan and Nate Lorenzo. 4 Therefore, the court finds that the third

8 Hinton element is met with respect to the remaining counts of THEFT BY RECEIVING (As a 9 2nd Degree Felony) in CF0492-22. 10 (4) Whether Defendant Susuico 's prior bad acts in CF0492-22 are too remote in time. II "The final prong of this four part test, proximity in time, looks to the relative gap between 12

13 the prior bad act and the charged crimes. Courts have routinely declined to adopt a rigid rule that

14 would act to freeze dates on a timeline for purposes of admissibility." Palisoc, 2002 Guam ,i 27 15 (citing United States v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1990)). 16 The People state that the offenses are not too remote in time, because the Defendant was 17 charged in CF0492-22 and CF0490-24 "between a span of just three years." Ppl.'s Notice at 4. In 18

19 this case, the Defendant's prior bad acts in CF0492-22 were originally indicted approximately

20 two (2) years prior to the offenses charged in this 2024 case. See Hinton, 31 F.2d at 823 (holding 21 that two years is not too remote in time). Therefore, the court finds that the fourth Hinton element 22 is met. 23

27 4 See generally People v. Susuico, CF0492-22 (Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 3:22:44 - 4:42:55PM (June 24, 2025)); see also 28 People v. Susuico, CF0492-22 (Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 4:26:57 - 5: 18:06PM (July 2, 2025)); see also People v. Susuico, CF0492-22 (Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 11 :26:46- 12: 12:45PM (July 7, 2025)).

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 11 of 14 Because all four elements under Hinton have been met, the court finds that evidence of

2 the Defendant's prior bad acts surrounding his THEFT BY RECEIVING charge in CF0492-22

3 are admissible under GRE 404(b ). 4 C. Defendant Susuico's prior bad acts are admissible under GRE 403. 5 "As an 'umbrella rule,' Rule 403 excludes unfairly prejudicial evidence regardless of the 6

7 underlying admission rule." People v. Sablan, 2023 Guam 4 1 90 (quoting Coleman v. Home

8 Depot, Inc., 306 F.3d 1333, 1343 (3d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). In other words, all relevant 9 evidence must be sifted through a balancing test under GRE 403. 10 Under this balancing test, the court may exclude relevant evidence "if its probative value 11 1s substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or 12

13 misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation

14 of cumulative evidence." Guam R. Evid. 403. Because all relevant evidence is prejudicial against 15 a defendant, GRE 403 asks us to look at whether the evidence is substantially prejudicial before 16 granting exclusion at trial. 17 In his Motion in Limine, the Defendant argues that the primary purpose of offering his 18

19 pretrial misconduct at trial "would be to provide the jury's instinct to punish or otherwise cause

20 a jury to base its decision on something other than the crimes at issue in this case." Def. 's Mot. 21 Limine at 1. 5 At the Motion Hearing, the Defendant adds that the pending adjudication of the 22 crimes charged in CF0492-22 not only unduly prejudices him. See Mot. Hr'g Mins. at 2:59:18 - 23

24 3:03:IOPM (June 17, 2025).

25 In its Notice, the People state that "any prejudice will be mitigated by the defense's cross- 26 examination of the witnesses and could be further mitigated by a jury instruction on the proper 27

5 28 Although the Defendant made this argument pursuant to GRE 404(b ), the court finds that this argument is also relevant for its review of the balancing test under GRE 403.

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 12 of 14 use of Ruel 404(b) evidence." Ppl. 's Notice at 4. While this evidence is prejudicial against the

2 Defendant, such evidence can only be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed

3 by the danger of unfair prejudice. 4 As it has done in previous trials where GRE 404(b) evidence was presented to a jury, the 5 court agrees that the Defendant's cross-examination of witnesses and a limiting jury instruction, 6

7 which the parties review before presenting it to the jury, will diminish any substantial prejudice

8 or confusion of the issues. Therefore, the court finds that the Defendant's prior bad acts in

9 CF0492-22 are admissible under GRE 403 at this time. 10 \\ 11 \\ 12

13 \\

14 \\ 15 \\ 16 \\ 17 \\ 18

19 \\

20 \\ 21 \\ 22 \\ 23

24 \\

25 \\

26 \\ 27 \\ 28

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 13 of 14 CONCLUSION

2 For reasons stated above, the court hereby DENIES Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's

3 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and 4 Pretrial Release. 5 Subject to the party's ability to admit such evidence in accordance with the Guam 6

7 Rules of Evidence at trial, this court's Decision & Order specifically denies the exclusion of

8 the Defendant's prior bad acts relating to the THEFT BY RECEIVING charge in CF0492-

9 22. 10

II SEP 15 2025 12 SO ORDERED this ------------ 13

17 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 18 Judge, Superior Court of Guam

23 SERVICE VIA EMAIL 24 I acknm•iledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to: 25

Decision & Order Re. Defendant Freddy Cuevas Susuico's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Misconduct Committed During Pretrial Detention and Pretrial Release People v. Susuico, CF0490-24 Page 14 of 14