People v. Timoti

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, )

) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0447-12 4 vs. )

5 ) DECISION AND ORDER ENDY TIMAS TIMOTI, )

6 )

Defendant. )

7 )

8 _____________________________)

INTRODUCTION

9 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to 10 appoint a traffic accident reconstruction expert, filed April 8, 2013. Oral arguments were heard II on April 29, 2013. Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins appeared on behalf of the 12 Government and Assistant Public Defender Peter J. Sablan represented the Defendant. Having 13 considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the 14 following Decision and Order.

15 BACKGROUND

16 Defendant is indicted with multiple offenses for alleged acts of drunk driving that 17 caused a death in a traffic accident. It is alleged that Defendant drove into an oncoming lane of 18 traffic, struck an oncoming motorcycle and pinned its operator underneath his vehicle.

19 On April 8, 2013, Defendant moved this Court to appoint a traffic accident expert, apart 20 from the Guam Police traffic accident expert, to assist the defense. Defendant asserts that an 21 expert of his own is necessary to prepare an adequate defense because he cannot cross-examine 22 the police traffic accident expert without some independent expert assistance. Defendant 23 anticipates conflicting eyewitness accounts of the accident and asks for expert assistance to 24 review the police expert's report. The Government responds that the only calculation made by 25 the police expert was to estimate the speed ofDefendant's vehicle.

26 \\

27 \\

28

Page 1 of3

DISCUSSION

2 Under Guam law, the court shall appoint and fund an expert witness for an indigent 3 defendant upon "a satisfactory showing ... that the presence of the witness is necessary to an 4 adequate defense." 8 GCA § 75.15. See also People v. Santos, 2003 Guam 1 11 15-16. 5 The mere hope or suspicion of the availability of certain evidence that might erode the State's case or buttress a defense will not suffice to satisfy the 6 requirement that defendant demonstrate a threshold showing of specific necessity 7 for expert assistance .... Similarly, undeveloped assertions that the requested expert assistance would be beneficial or even essential to the preparing of an 8 adequate defense are insufficient to satisfy this threshold requirement. 9 Santos, 2003 Guam 1 at 1 24 (quoting State v. Pierce, 488 S.E.2d 576, 583-84 (N.C. 1997)

10 (emphasis omitted).

II In this case, Defendant moves to appoint an additional traffic reconstruction expert so he 12 may better cross-examine the police expert with anticipated eyewitness testimony. Defendant 13 does not allege that the police expert is uncooperative or that he cannot interview the expert and 14 examine his opinion. See Santos, 2003 Guam 1 at 1 22. Furthermore, defense counsel has 15 consulted eyewitnesses with conflicting accounts of the accident and he may effectively cross- 16 examine and challenge the police expert's opinion without the assistance of another expert. See 17 Santos, 2003 Guam I at 121 (citing State v. Newton, 347 S.E.2d 81, 83-84 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986) 18 ("There are usually other methods by which defense counsel himself, without the use of 19 investigators or experts, can uncover information or educate himself regarding a particular 20 scientific discipline.")). 21 In sum, Defendant has not proffered any evidence that his defense counsel cannot 22 effectively challenge the police expert's findings through effective interview or cross- 23 examination. See Santos, 2003 Guam 1 at 1 25 (citing Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495, 503 24 (5th Cir. 2000) ("[A] defendant cannot expect the state to provide him a most-sophisticated 25 defense; rather, he is entitled to 'access to the raw materials integral to the building of an 26 effective defense.' Most of those raw materials come ... in the form of his court-appointed 27 lawyer-in his expert knowledge about how to negotiate the rules of court, how to mount an 28

Page 2 of3

effective defense, and so forth.")). For these reasons, Defendant does not satisfy the threshold 2 showing of specific necessity for expert assistance and his motion shall be denied. 3 Ill 4 Ill 5 Ill 6 CONCLUSION 7 Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion to appoint an additional traffic accident 8 reconstruction expert is hereby DENIED. 9

IO SO ORDERED this / (f?i day of June, 2013. II

12

13

14 JioN. JAMES L. CANTO II Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 3 of3