E §a,.E.@ 3IJp§.glIoR COURT 1 OFGUAH 2 2021 UCT 20 PH 5: 13 3 CLERKIOF COURT 4 ay: 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
9 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0276-21 GPD Report Nos.: 21-134993/21-13558 ) 10 ) vs. ) 11 ) DECISION AND ORDER: 12 CHRIS JUNIOR ANDERSON ) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss TEDTAOTAO, ) The First and Second Charges or in the 13 aka Chris Anderson Tedtaotao, Jr., ) Alternative for a Bill of Particulars DOB: 03/07/1992 or 09/07/1992 ) 14 ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 1. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on June 29, 2021 for a hearing on 18
19 Defendant Chris Junior Anderson Tedtaotao's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss the First and
20 Second Charges or in the Alternative for a Bill of Particulars (the "Motion"). Alternate Public
21 Defender Heather Zora was present and argued the Motion on behalf of Defendant. Assistant 22 Attorney General Alysa Draper-Dehatt represented the People of Guam (the "People"). At the 23 24 conclusion of hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement pursuant to CVR 7.1(e)(6)(D)
25 of the LOCAL RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM and Administrative Rule Nos.
26 06-001 (Jan. 14, 2005) and 13-.003(c)(May 13, 2013). 27 Upon consideration of the parties' oral arguments during the hearing, the record on file 28 with the court, and applicable legal authority, the Court now issues this Decision and Order People v. Tedtaotao, CF0276-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Page 1 of 13 1 DENYING IN PART and GRANTING IN PART Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First and 2 Second Charges or in the Alternative for a Bill of Particulars . 3 11. BACKGROUND AND FACTS 4
Defendant Chris Junior Anderson Tedtaotao ("Defendant") was indicted on June 14, 5
6 2021, for the following charges :
7 1.Interfering with the Reporting of Family Violence (As a 3rd Degree Felony) ; 8 2. Felony Escape (As a wIld Degree Felony), and 3. Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) . 9 Defendant asserted his Right to a Speedy Trial on June 23, 2021, at his Arraignment, however, 10
11 he filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on June 29, 2021, and for the reasons set forth in its Order
12 Vacating Jury Selection and Trial and Tolling Speedy Trial (Pending Motion to Dismiss), the 13 Court found good cause to vacate jury selection and triad while the Motion to Dismiss was 14 pending.l In his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argued that the First and Second charges should 15
17 1 On July 6, 2021, the Court issued its Order Vacating Jury Selection and Trial and Toiling Speedy Trial (Pending Motion to Dismiss). In this Order, the Court found good cause to vacate the asserted trial schedule in this case 18 because the dismissal of these charges would result in two of three charges against the Defendant being fully adjudicated and, therefore, inured to the benefit of the Defendant. Id. at 2 (citing to People v. Guerrero, 2017 Guam 19 5 'ii 17 (additional citations omitted) and Carver v. Superior Court of Guam, 1998 Guam 23 (Nov. 17, l998))("delay caused by the conduct of the defendant constitutes good cause, as does delay for the defendant's benefit or delay 20 from unforeseen circumstances...the fact that a defendant refuses to waive his right to a speedy trial is not significant where good cause for the delay is apparent on the face of the record.")). Defendant's counsel filed a 21 Notice of Objection to Resetting Trial Date and Tolling of Speedy Trial (July 6, 2021) and the People responded by filing the People's Reply Brief to Defendant's Notice of Objection to Resetting Trial Date and Tolling of Speedy 22 Trial (July 13, 2021). The Court did not respond to Defendant's Notice of Objection except to note it for the record; however, this Court did not and does not consider the mere filing of Defendant's motion to dismiss to "automatically 23 justify delay" of Defendant's right to a speedy trial and this Court continued to act diligently in promptly disposing of the motion within the deadline set forth in the applicable Administrative Rules 06-001 and 13-003. Compare, 24 Nicholson v. Superior Court of Guam, 2007 Guam 9 (Oct. 10, 2007)(the trial court issued its decision on Defendant's motion to dismiss 284 days after taking it under advisement and the Supreme Court found that such 25 amount of time was unreasonable and did not constitute good cause)(but see fn. 7 in which the Supreme Court cited to 7 GCA § 4lOl(e)(1)(2005) and Administrative Rule No. 06-001 providing that "where a motion is taken under 26 advisement a decision on the motion must be issued within ninety days" and further noting that Adm. Rule No. 06- 001 was not in effect at the time the trial court took the motion in Nicnoison under advisement). 27 Thus, in considering the requirement set forth in Carver that "good cause" must be established from the face of the 28 record, the Court submits that the record sets forth the Court's reasoning in finding "good cause" and further finds s u p p or t i n t h e 9 0 a n d 1 2 0 d a y d e a d l i n e s s e t for t h i n Ad mi n i s t r a t i ve Ru l e No. 0 6 -0 0 1 a n d con fi r me d i n Administrative Rule No. 13-003. These Administrative Rules promulgated by the Guam Supreme Court establish by People v. Tedlaotao, cF027@21 DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Page 2 of 13 1 be dismissed with prejudice because the Prosecution has failed to allege facts sufficient, on the 2 face of the Indictment, to support the charges. Mot. at 6. Specifically, Defendant argues the 3 averments in the Indictment: (1) failed to give the Defendant sufficient notice of the charges 4
against him "with sufficient clarity to allow him to maintain an adequate defense and to bar 5
6 subsequent prosecution for the same offense," and (2) failed to set forth "the essential facts that
7 support that allegation." Mot. at 4, 5. Moreover, Defendant argues that more than simply 8 articulating the language of the statute is required, and the charging document must also set forth 9 the essential facts necessary to apprise the defendant of the crime charged. Mot. at 5. 10
11 In its Response, with respect to the First Charge of Interfering with the Reporting of
12 Family Violence (As a 3I'd Degree Felony), the People contend that the Indictment, together with
13 the Magistrate's Complaint and Declaration which is a part of the Magistrate's Complaint, 14 provide adequate notice to the Defendant, as required under the principles of due process. See 15 People's Resp. to Defendant's Mot. to Dismiss (July 2, 2021). The People also requested the that 16
17 the Court dismiss the Second charge without prejudice so that it may charge the offense
18 separately as a Misdemeanor "because the facts charged would be better served in its own 19
20 affirmation the reasonable amount of time justifying "good cause" for delay of a Defendant's speedy trial for the 21 purpose of considering a Defendant's dispositive motion. Nicholson at fn. 7. Moreover, as the record reflects in this case, the Defendant asserted his right to speedy trial on June 25, 2021, and the Court immediately set Jury Selection 22 and Trial in this matter to commence on July 14, 2021 - well within the 45 day time set forth in 8 GCA § 80.60. On June 29, 2021, Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss, the People filed its Opposition on July 2, 2021, Defendant 23 filed his Reply on July 8, 2021, and the Court scheduled an In Person hearing on the Motion to Dismiss for July 29, 2021. In between the several filings, the Defendant tiled numerous pleadings, including several motions in liming 24 unrelated to the Motion to Dismiss (between July 2, 2021 to July 6, 2021), a Notice of Objection to Resetting Trial Date and Tolling of Speedy Trial (July 6, 2021), and an Ex Parte Motion for Bail Redetermination Hearing (July 16, 25 2021)(which was subsequently withdrawn on August 8, 2021). On the eve of the July 29 scheduled hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Defendant filed a Brief in Further Support of His Motion to Dismiss and I n 26 Opposition to Prosecution's Motion to Quasi Subpoenas (Jul 28, 2021). Despite this filing, which was not submitted in compliance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court proceeded to hear Defendant's Motion as 27 scheduled. On July 29, 2021, the Court took the matter Under Advisement pursuant to Administrative Rule 06-001 and Administrative Rule 13-003 and now issues the instant Decision and Order in advance of the 90-day deadline 28 set forth in the Administrative Rules.
People v. Tedtaotao, CF0276-21 DECI SI ON AND ORDER RE: M O T I O N TO DISMISS Page 3 of 13 1 complaint as it was a separate course of conduct and because no prejudice would have occurred
2 to the Defendant at this time." Response at 8. 3 111. LAW AND ANALYSIS 4
Guam law states that, "[t]he indictment shall be a plain, concise, and definite written 5
6 statement of the essential facts constituting the offense and shall be signed by the prosecuting
7 attorney." 8 GCA § 55.10. "An indictment which tracks the words of the statute charging the
8 offense "is sufficient as long as the words unambiguously set forth all the elements of the 9 offense." People v. Tories, 2014 Guam 8 '][ 20. "A motion for a bill of particulars is appropriate 10
11 where a defendant requires clarification in order to prepare a defense." United States v. Long,
12 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9"' Cir. 1983).
13 The Guam Supreme Court has held that an indictment is sufficient where it contains the 14 elements of the crime alleged, adequately informs the defendant of the crime to allow him to 15. 16 defend against the charges, and is stated with sufficient clarity to bar subsequent prosecution for
17 the same offense. Guam v. Jones, 2006 Guam 13, '][ 12, (referencing People v. Salas, 2000 Guam
18 2 'i[ 19). Additionally, when determining whether a request for a bill of particulars is appropriate,
19 the court must consider whether the defendant has been adequately advised of the charges 20 through the indictment and all other disclosures made by the government. Long, 706 F.2d at 21
1054. 22
23 a. The First Charge: Interfering with the Reporting of Family Violence
24 The Defendant argues that insufficient facts have been alleged charging him with
25 Interfering with the Reporting of Family Violence (as a 3l'd Degree Felony) under 9 G C A §§ 26 30.300(a) and (C), Mot. to Dismiss, p . 1 -2 . The Ind ictm ent alleges that the Defend ant 27 28 intentionally, knowingly, or recldessly prevented or attempted to prevent a witness to an act of
People v. Tedtaotao, CF0276-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Page 4 of 13 1 family violence from calling 911, obtaining medical assistance, or madding a report to any law 2 . enforcement oficlal. Indictment (June 14, 2021 ). 3 Defendant argues that this charge is improper because according to the Declaration filed 4
5 with the Magistrate's Complaint as well as the discovery provided to the Defendant to date, the
6 evidence shows that the witness was able to contact 911 to report the family violence and the
7 Defendant did not tadce his phone back until after the call had been made. Mot. to Dismiss, p. 3.
8 The Defendant argues that interfering with the reporting of family violence as charged is 9 factually impossible due to the fact that the report of family violence was completed. Hrg. Min. 10
11 3: 18:56PM (June 29, 2021). However, this argument misapprehends the language of the statute.
12 The Indictment charges the Defendant as follows: 13
14 "On or about the 3rd day of June 2021, in Guam, CHRIS JUNIOR ANDERSON TEDTAOTAO (aka Chris Anderson Tedtaotao Jr.) did commit the 15 offense of InterferiNg with the Reporting of Family Violence (As a 3111 Degree Felony), in that he did commit an act of family violence and he intentionally, 16 knowingly, or recldessly prevented or attempted to prevent J.M.C. (DOB 17 05/30/2009) or a witness to that act of family violence from calling a 911 emergency communication system, obtaining medical assistance, or making a 18 report to any law enforcement official, in violation of 9 GCA § 30.300(a) and 19 (C)-"
20 9 GCA § 30.300(a) states: 21
(a) Any person commits the crime of interfering with the reporting of family 22 violence if the person: 23 (1) commits an act of family violence, as defined in § 30.10 of this Chapter, and 24 (2) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly prevents or attempts to prevent the victim of or a witness to that act of family violence from calling a 911 25 emergency communication system, obtaining medical assistance, or malting a 26 report to any law enforcement official.
People v. Tedtaomo, CF0276-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOT ION T O DISMISS Page 5 of 13 1 Here, the charge in the Indictment of interfering with the reporting of family violence 2 I . .» . dlrectly follows the language of the statute charging the offense. Spec1f1ca11y, the charge in the 3 Indictment states that: 4 1. On or about the 3rd day of June, 5 2. In Guam, 6 3. Committed an act of family violence, 4. Then he knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly prevented or attempted to prevent 7 J.M.C. (DOB 05/30/2009) (a witness to that act of family violence) from calling a 8 911 emergency communication system.
9 (emphasis added).
10 Defendant appears to require that the INdictment state the specific action undertaken by 11 the Defendant in preventing or attempting to prevent the reporting of the crime, however, this is 12 not required under 8 GCA § 55.10. In fact, the Declaration tiled with the Magistrate's Complaint 13
14 and which is in the Defendant's possession clearly alleges that the Defendant grabbed the phone
15 away from J.M.C. when J.M.C. contacted emergency services and that when the victim tried
16 running to the police for help, the Defendant struck the top of her head repeatedly. Deal. to Mag. 17 Compo. (June 5, 2021). As Guam law provides, "attempt" is defined as follows: "A person is 18 19 guilty of an attempt to conn lit a crime when, with intent to engage in conduct which would
20 constitute such crime were the circumstances as he believes them to be, he performs or omits to
21 perform an act which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime." 9 GCA §§ 22 , . . . 30.10(d) and 13.10. Thus, even if the facts as alleged by the Defendant are consldered in the light 23 favorable to his argument, there is sufficient notice provided to him that the charge is based upon 24 25 both preventing andattempting to prevent J.M.C. from making the call.
26 The Court finds that the charge as stated in the Indictment contains the elements of the
27 crime alleged, adequately informs the defendant of the crime to allow him to defend against the 28 charges, and is stated with sufficient clarity to bar subsequent Prosecution for the same offense. People v. Tedtaotao,CF0276-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Page 6 of 13 1 If the Defendant did not, in fact, actually, attempt to prevent the 911 call, then that is a factual
determlnatlon left to the jury to make. Add1t1ona11y, Defendant has been Informed of the crlme 3 alleged because Defendant already has articulated a potential defense to one of the elements of 4 5 the crime alleged. The charge is also specific enough in regard to time and date of the alleged
6 offense that subsequent prosecution for the same offense will not happen. Dismissal of the First
7 Charge of Interfering with the Reporting of Family Violence (As a 3 I`d Degree Felony) is not 8 appropriate under these circumstances. 9 The Defendant argues that the Indictment charges the Defendant with intentionally, 10
11 knowingly, or recklessly attempting to prevent the victim of or a witness to the act of family
12 violence from calling a 911 emergency communication system and that attempting to prevent
13 something is impossible if it has already happened. Hrg. Min. 3:17:09PM (June 29, 2021). The 14 Defendant likened this situation to one where someone attempts to prevent a marriage from 15 16 taldng place but shows up after the couple has been married, arguing that the person can no
17 longer attempt to prevent something that has already occurred. Hrg. Min. 3:27:34PM (June 29,
18 2021). The Court Ends this analogy to be unpersuasive. 19 9 GCA § 30.300(a)(2) states that any person commits the crime of interfering with the 20 reporting of family violence if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly prevents OR 21 22 attempts to prevent the victim of or a witness to that act of family violence from calling a 911
23 emergency communication system. The Defendant's argument might be persuasive if the statute
24 did not allocate for the attempt to prevent a call to 911. The Defendant is being charged with 25 . . . . . 1ntent1ona11y, knowingly, or recldessly attempting to prevent a call, not for preventing a call to 26 911. There is no indication from the record that the Defendant knew that a call had already been 27 28 made when he grabbed the phone from J.M.C. Further, although this is not charged as an
People v. Tedtaotao, CF0276-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Page 7 of 13 l inchoate crime, the Court finds the statutes regarding attempt to be persuasive, specifically 9 2 GCA § 13.15 which states that in a prosecution for an attempt, it is no defense that it was 3 impossible to commit the crime. Although Defendant is not being prosecuted for an attempt to 4 5 commit a crime, he is being charged with attempting to prevent a reporting of family violence,
6 and the impossibility of preventing the report does not negate an attempt to do so.
7 b. Bill of Particulars is not warranted. 8 A bill of particulars is appropriate where a defendant requires clarification in order to 9 prepare a defense. United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9"' Cir. 1983). When determining 10
11 whether a request for a bill of particulars is appropriate, the court must consider whether the
12 defendant has been advised adequately of the charges through the indictment and all other
13 disclosures made by the government. Id. at p. 1054. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to 14 "apprise the defendant of the specific charges being presented to minimize the danger of surprise 15
16 at trial, to aid in preparation and to protect against double jeopardy." Id. See also United States v.
17 Butler, 822 F.2d 1191, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
18 The Court has found that the Indictment adequately advises the Defendant of the charges
19 because it has sufficiently alleged each element of the offense and informs the Defendant of the 20 crime. Additionally, in determining whether further clarification is needed, the Court also may 21
22 consider the other disclosures made by the government.
23 The People assert in their Response to the Motion that enough specificity as to the
24 charges against the Defendant has been provided. In particular, the People reference the
25 Declaration filed with the Magistrate's Complaint that the charges are based on a specific 26 altercation in which the Victim attempted to run to the police for help but the Defendant stopped 27 28 her. Also indicated in the Declaration is that while J.M.C. was on the phone with the 911
People v. Tedtaofao, CF0276-21 D E C I S I O N A N D OR D E R R E: M O T I O N T O D I S M I S S Page 8 of 13 1 dispatcher, Defendant attempted to grab the phone. People's Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss at p. 2-3 2 (July 2, 2021), Ex. A to Def. 's Nth. of Exhibit to Mot. to Dismiss (Jul. 29, 2021). Additionally, the 3 People indicate that Defense counsel was provided with the police reports upon which the 4 5 Indictment as presented to the Grand Jury is based and as such has been provided further
6 disclosures and clarification regarding the allegations in this case. Id. at p. 3. The Court also
7 finds that the Defendant has the Guam Police Report which contains a narrative of the actions
8 allegedly committed by the Defendant which form the basis of the First Charge. In fact, 9 Defendant provided this redacted report ro the Court as its Defendant's Notice of Exhibit to 10 11 Motion to Dismiss (Jul. 29, 2021). In it, the narrative states: "Dispatch further relayed that the
12 reporting person is a 12 year old male minor who reported that his father assaulted his mother
13 and while speaddng with the minor, the father took the phone away from the minor." Ex. A to 14 Nic. (emphasis added). Thus, the Court finds that the Defendant has adequate notice of the 15 16 essential facts which form the basis of the charges in the Indictment sufficient to prepare for his
17 defense. Consequently, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the FIRST
18 CHARGE and further DENIES Defendant's motion for a Bill of Particulars because, considering 19 . . all the dlsclosures made by the Government, the Defendant has been adequately apprised of the 20 charge against him. 21
c. The Second Charge: Felony Escape 22
23 The Defendant argues in regard to the Second Charge of Felony Escape (as a 3rd Degree
24 Felony) under 9 GCA §§ 58.10 and 58.20(a), insufficient facts have been alleged because the 25 . . . 1 . .. . IndIctment states that he 1ntent1onal1y or knowingly escaped a detention fac111ty where he was in 26 custody upon a felony charge or conviction. Mot. to Dismiss at p. 3. Defendant argues that a 27 28 "detention facility" is defined as any place used pursuant to an order of the court and any place to
People v. Tedtaotao, CF0276-2 I DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Page 9 of 13 1 which a person ordered to be confined to a detention facility pursuant to paragraph (1) has been 2 . . . . . or is belng lawfully taken for purposes of labor, court appearance, recreatlon, medlcal or hospltal 3 care, transit or similar purpose under 9 GCA § 58.10(b). Id. In this case, there was no order 4 5 confining Defendant to Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center ("GBHWC") from where
6 he then allegedly escaped. Defendant was arrested and then taken to GBHWC but no
7 commitment order had been filed ordering his confinement at GBHWC (this charge was not
8 initially charged in the Magistrate's Complaint, but the People stare that this was alleged in the 9 discovery). Id. 10
11 The People object to the dismissal of the Second charge with prejudice and instead
12 request for dismissal without prejudice so that they may refile the second charge as a
13 misdemeanor in a separate action. People '5 Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss at p. 3. In fact, the People 14 have already filed this action as CM0233-21, charging the Defendant with Ordinary Escape (As 15 16 a Misdemeanor). Thus, although there is sufficient basis to dismiss the Second Charge without
17 prejudice for this reason, the Court considers further good cause to deny the Motion to Dismiss
18 with prejudice. 19 Under 8 GCA § 80.70(a), the prosecuting attorney may, with leave of court, file a 20 dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon 21 terminate. Such a dismissal may not be tiled during the trial without the consent of the defendant. 22
23 The prosecuting attorney shall file a statement of his reasons for seeking dismissal when he
24 applies for leave to file a dismissal and where leave is granted the court's order shall set forth the 25 reasons for granting such leave. 8 GCA § 80.70(a). 26 Here, the People have requested dismissal of the second charge of the indictment stating 27
28 that the facts charged would be better served in its own complaint as it was a separate course of
People v. Tedtaotao,CF0276-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Page 10 of 13 1 conduct and argue that no prejudice would have occurred to the Defendant at this time. People's
2 . . r Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss at p. 8. Currently, the Second Charge is belng charged as a 3 d degree 3 felony, if the dismissal without prejudice occurs, the People intend to retile it as 8 misdemeanor 4 5 which would not prejudice the Defendant, which the People have already done.
6 d. Dismissal Without Prejudice of Second Charge of Felony Escape
7 8 GCA § 80.70(a) is modeled in part after Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 8 . . . . . . Procedure, as such, the interpretation of Fed. Rule Crum. Pro. 48(a) is persuasive in interpreting 8 9 GCA § 80.70(a). See People of Guam v. Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19. In determining whether the 10
11 charge should be dismissed with or without prejudice the court considers. whether the People
12 have brought the request for dismissal with good faith or bad faith. People of Guam v. Gutierrez,
13 2005 Guam 19, '1[ 51. The circuit courts have universally held that the prosecution is entitled to a 14 presumption of good faith when bringing a Rule 48(a) motion, and the motion should generally 15 16 be granted as a matter of course. Id. at '][ 52 (citing United States v. Deal, 868 F.2d 424, 428
17 (nth Cir.1989). The presumption of good faith is rebutted upon a showing of bad faith on the
18 part of the People. Id. at '][ 53. Good faith may be rebutted by showing that prosecutorial 9 . . . 1 rmsconduct or harassment has occurred or that the prosecutlon has acted in a way contrary to the 20 public interest. See Id. at ']['1"[54-55. 21
Here, the Defendant has not shown that the People are acting in bad faith requesting 22
23 dismissal without prejudice to refiling. The People also assert that their basis for dismissing and
24 retiling is to bring a new case for a lesser charge with a declaration and Magistrate's Complaint
25 related only to that offense which would be dismissed. In fact, the People have already filed the 26 charge as a misdemeanor in CM0233-21, which is assigned to the Honorable Vernon Perez and 27 28 in which a Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice is pending. See, Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss With
People v. Tedtaotao, CF0276-2 1 DECI SI ON AND ORDER RE: MOTI ON TO DI SMI SS Page ll of 13 1 Prejudice (Oct. 7, 2021). The second charge in this matter is also factually separate from the
2 other family violence related charges and would not be redundant or create inefficiencies in the 3 adjudication of the charge as a separate offense. 4 Based on the People's representations as to their basis for bringing the charge as a 5
6 separate action and no showing of bad faith on the part of the People in dismissing the charge,
7 and further because the Court takes judicial notice of Criminal Case No. CM0233-21 which
8 charges Defendant with .the offense of Ordinary Escape (As a Misdemeanor), the Coup 9 GRANTS the Dismissal of the Second Charge of FELONY ESCAPE (As a 3I'd Degree Felony) 10 11 WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
12 Having only properly before it the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First and Second
13 Charges or in the Alternative for a Bill of Particulars, the Court shall not consider the 14 Defendant's new arguments as presented in the untimely filed Defendant's Brief in Further 15
6 Support of his Motion to Dismiss with to the People's purported inability to meet their burden of 1 17 proof in this matter. Similarly, the Court will not address the People's Motion to Quash the
18 Defendant's Subpoenas which are in reference to the new arguments made in the Defendant's
19 Brief. Should Defendant wish this Court to consider a separate basis justifying dismissal of the 20 Indictment against him, he must do so in compliance with the applicable rules and notice 21
22 requirements provided under the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam and applicable
23 Guam Rules of Criminal Procedure.
24 Iv. CONCLUSION 25 For these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with regard 26 tO the First Charge of INTERFERING WITH THE REPORTING OF FAMILY VIOLENCE (As 27 28 a 3rd Degree Felony) and GRANTS IN PART the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second
People v, Tedtaotao, CF0276-21 DECI SI ON AND ORDER RE: M O T I O N TO DISMISS Page 12 of 13 1 Charge of FELONY ESCAPE (as a 3rd Degree Felony), and DISMISSES this charge WITHOUT 2 PREJUDICE. 3 The trial of this matter shall commence with Jury Selection on November 3, 2021, at 4
10:00 AM. Pre-trial Conference shall be held on October 25, 2021, at 9:30 AM. Concurrently 5
6 with this Decision and Order, the Court shall issue an Asserted Criminal Trial Scheduling Order
7 setting forth relevant deadlines and dates in this case. 8
9 SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2021.
12 w HdNOMBLE` MARIA T. cEnz0` 13 JUDGE,SUPERIORCOURTOFGUAM 14
21 sElzvlcE vIA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to: 22 AGQL As D 23
OCT 2 1 2021 Ia \7.Adv\ 24
Cynthia T. Tiong_ 25 DeputyClark,SuperiorCourtdGum
People v. Tedmotao, CF0276-21 DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Page 13 of 13