People v. Tedtaotao

Opinion

' i.J

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE No. CF 0453-1 7 ) ) 8 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 9 CHRIS J.A. TEDTAOTAO, ) 10 ) Defendant. ) II ____________ ) 12 INTRODUCTION 13

14 This matter is before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of

15 the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, Defendant's request to reduce a felony charge 16 to a misdemeanor was taken under advisement on February 13, 2014. The People are 17 represented by Assistant Attorney Teri C. Tenorio. Defendant is represented by Alternate 18

19 Public Defender Eric C. Overton. Having reviewed the memorandum and papers presented,

20 the Court now issues the following decision DENYING in part Defendant's motion and 21 requiring that the People provide the Court with a copy of the People's surveillance video for 22 review. 23 FACTUAL HISTORY 24

25 The Defendant was indicted on two charges: I) Child Abuse, as a 3rd Degree Felony, two

26 counts and 2) Family Violence, as a 3rd Degree Felony, two counts. The charges stem from an 27 alleged incident that occurred between the Defendant, his girlfriend and their minor child. 28

Pagelof4

/, On January 24, 2014, the Defendant filed a motion to reduce the Family Violence felony 2 to a misdemeanor. In his motion, the Defendant argues and asserts that I) the first charge of 3 the complaint as presented to the grand jury did not allege any felony offenses; and that he 4

5 qualifies for a reduction pursuant to 9 GCA § 30.20(b). Defendant argues that the wording of

6 the first and second charge does not indicate its felony nature and that the third and fourth

7 charge cover the same incident. 8 He also asserts that there is no evidence that: the minor sustained any injuries, his actions 9 rose to the level of risk of serious bodily injury, weapons were used, alcohol or drugs were 10

II involved, and that there is no indication that the Defendant is not amendable to counseling.

12 The People filed an opposition on January 14, 2014. In it they argue that the Defendant's 13 actions meet the elements of the crimes charged so they should not be reduced. They assert 14 that during the incident there is surveillance video of the Defendant holding a rifle, of his twice 15 throwing a slipper at his daughter knocking her down and of his kicking the child in the 16

17 stomach area such that she was thrown upon her back a few feet away. They further argue that

18 9 GCA § 30.20(e) allows for a family violence charge to arise out of the same incident and that 19 Defendant's wording challenge is unsupported and ambiguous. 20 Defendant did not file a reply to the People's opposition. 21 DISCUSSION 22

23 The Defendant has requested to have the second charge of the indictment, reduced to a

24 misdemeanor. Section 30.20 of the Family Violence Act, provides the Court with a seven- 25 factor analysis for determining whether a felony charge of Family Violence may be reduced to 26 a misdemeanor. 9 GCA §30.20(c)(2013). The relevant statute reads: 27

Page 2 of4 In determining whether any felony charge filed pursuant to this § 30.20 should be reduced to a misdemeanor, the court shall consider the following factors, 2 among others: 3 (I) The extent or seriousness of the victim's injuries; (2) The defendant's history of violence against the same victim whether 4 charged or uncharged; (3) The use of a gun or other weapon by the defendant; 5 (4) The defendant's prior criminal history; 6 (5) The victim's attitude and conduct regarding the incident; (6) The involvement of alcohol or other substance, and the defendant's history 7 of substance abuse as reflected in the defendant's criminal history and other 8 sources; and (7) The defendant's history of and amenability to counseling. 9 !d. 10

II Applying these factors to the instant case the Court finds that: a lack of evidence of the

12 seriousness of injury; the Defendant's non-history of victim-directed family violence; and the 13 non-use of a deadly weapon, may merit the reduction of the family violence charge to a 14 misdemeanor. Although it is asserted that a gun was present in the video of the Defendant the 15 Court is unable to find that this, itself, is evidence of its use as required by the statute. !d. The 16

17 Court is also not persuaded that Defendant's prior criminal history should preclude reduction

18 under the terms of9 GCA § 30.20. !d. 19 Most salient to the Court's review is any evidence of the seriousness of the injury. The 20 instant statute requires that some evidence of injury and its seriousness be shown. !d. Under 21 Section 30.20, it is not sufficient to only produce evidence of a threat, risk or attempt to injure. 22

23 !d. In this case the People have produced or described little evidence of any injury to the minor

24 child. !d. Accordingly prior to the Court deciding this issue it shall require the production of 25 the surveillance video showing the events described herein. 26 The Defendant's argument disputing the wording of the first charge is insufficient. 8 27

28 GCA § 65.15; see, Lamb v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2, ~~ 34-36 (It is not sufficient for a party

Page3 of4 simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover 2 and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments). 3 Defendant cites no legal authority supporting his argument and fai ls to analyze outline or 4 explain its application to any facts or law. Mot. at 1-2. Absent a further analysis and 5

6 presentation by the Defendant the Court is unable to conduct a meaningful review of this first

7 argument. 8 CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, the People shall produce for the Court's review a copy of the 10 surveillance video described herein with 14 days of the entry of this order. Upon its review II

12 and in accordance with this decision the Court shall issue the remainder of its decision

13 promptly. Defendant's motion to reduce his charge is DENIED as to charge one, the Court' s 14 decision on the remaining charge to be forthcoming. 15

f~ 17 SO ORDERED, this 7fJ: day of 20 14. 18

23 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX I acknowledge that a copy ol the original hereto was placed In the 24 :;box;fpb 25

Page 4 o1'4