People v. Tedtaotao

Opinion

3 4

2 11 51 3 C_ J 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5 6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No.: CF0268=13 7 V. 8 PAULA L.A. TEDTAOTAO, DECISION AND ORDER 9 ANTHONY M.T. GUMATATAO and CANDERLARIA M. PEREZ, 10 Defendant. 11

13 INTR ODUC TION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on April 16, 2014 for 15 16 a suppression hearing. The People are represented by Assistant Attorney General James L.G.

17 Stake. Defendant is represented by attorney Anthony R. Camacho. Having reviewed the 18 motion, memorandum and papers presented, the Court now issues the following decision- 19 denying Defendant's motion to suppress. 20 BACKGROUND 21

22 On May 23, 2013, Defendants Tedtaotao, Gumataotao and Perez were indicted upon the

23 following charges and counts: 1) Burglary, as a 2nd Degree felony, two counts; 2) Theft of 24 Property as a 2nd Degree Felony; 3) Theft of Property, as a Misdemeanor, four counts. Within 25 the same indictment Defendant Tedtaotao was also charged with: 1) Intimidation of Witness by 26 Extortion, as a 3rd Degree Felony; and 2) Child Abuse, as a Misdemeanor. 27'

Page 1 o r4

S I On January 17, 2014, Defendant Gumataotao filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. In it 2 he requests that any statements that he gave to the Guam Police Department be suppressed. In 3 support of this request he asserts that despite requesting to speak with an attorney and not 4 waiving his rights, police officers continued to question him. 5

6 He asserts that as a result of their continued questioning he made incriminating

7 statements and gave them a tour of various alleged crime scenes. Upon the same basis, 8 Defendant Gumataotao also argues that any evidence seized from his residence located at #113 9 Bilibiines Court, Liguan Terrace, Dededo on or about May 15, 2013 should be suppressed. 10 11 On February 24, 2014, the People filed their response to Defendant's motion. The

12 People argue and assert that the circumstances of the case reveal that after requesting an

13 attorney and invoking his rights, Defendant subsequently waived his rights. The People assert 14 that upon invoking his rights the Police and the Defendant tried to contact Defendant's attorney 15 and after being unsuccessful Defendant waived his rights and agreed to cooperate. 16

17 Defendant did not file a reply.

18 DISCUSSION 19 In 2007 the Guam Supreme Court explained, "[t]estimonial evidence that is a product of 20 custodial interrogation is inadmissible unless a defendant waived the privilege against self- 21 incrimination." People of Guam v. Farata, 2007 Guam 8 ¶ 46. Waivers must be voluntary and 22

23 made after a knowledge of the rights waived. Id. Whether a wavier was voluntary is reviewed

24 under a totality of the circumstances test . Id. As explained by various U. S. Federal Circuit 25 Courts of Appeal, in a motion to suppress , a defendant carries the initial burden of showing 26 illegality. US. v. Benoit, 730 F.3d 280, 288 (3rd Cir. 2013); see, Lamb v. Hoffman , 2008 Guam 27

28 2, ¶¶ 34-36.

Page 2 of 4 • 1 After this initial burden of sufficiency is met the burden falls upon the people to show 2 legality. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 16&(1986). The U.S . Supreme Court in 1986 and 3 subsequent Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have consistently held that, "[ w]henever the State 4 bears the burden of proof in a motion to suppress a statement that the defendant claims was 5

6 obtained in violation of our Miranda doctrine, the State need prove waiver only by a

7 preponderance of the evidence." Id.; US. v. Capers, 627 F.3d 470, 480 (2nd Cir. 2010). 8 In this case it is undisputed that Defendant upon being taken into custody declined to 9 waive his Miranda rights and requested that he be allowed to speak with his attorney. To assist 10 11 the Defendant the police officers attempted to make telephone contact with the attorney. The

12 Police officers and the Defendant were not able to make telephone contact with the attorney. 13 The officers subsequently told the Defendant they just wanted the truth and the asked the 14 Defendant if he would be willing to cooperate. The Defendant indicated that he would be 15 willing to co-operate. He also subsequently completed and signed a statement where he 16

17 indicated he had been advised of his rights and was providing the information freely and

18 voluntarily. 19 In 1986 the Guam Appellate Division explained " that it makes no sense to hold that 20 once an accused has requested counsel, he may never, until he has actually talked with counsel, 21

change his mind and decide to speak with the police without an attorney being present." People 22

23 of Territory of Guam v. Mafnas, No. 8400061A, 1986 WL 68913, at *6 (D. Guam App. Div.

24 1986)(citations omitted ). Viewing the facts, individually and in their totality, the Court finds 25 that facts of Defendant ' s waiver have been sufficiently shown. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 26 157, 168 (1986). There is no evidence in this case of undue delay , coercion or intimidation. 27

28 Nor is there significant evidence of any continued interrogation which might infringe upon

Page 3 of 4 {.

I Defendant' s ability to voluntarily waive his rights after having once asserted them. Absent this

the Court is not persuaded that it can support a finding which merits the. suppression of 3 evidence . People of Territory of Guam v. Mafnas , No. 8400061A, 1986 WL 68913, at *6 (D. 4

Guam App. Div. 1986). 5

6 CONCLUSION

7 Based upon the foregoing Defendant' s motion to suppress is DENIED. This matter is 8 hereby set for further proceedings on -k�L� ?Drf1-1. 2014 at l4 z 9

11 SO ORDERED this day of 2014.

15 HO BLE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO Judge, Superior Court of Guam 16

20 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 21 I acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was placed in the 22 court4o)�.of:

23 J ime: / / .67 24

Page 4 of 4