People v. Torres
Opinion
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF02S3-12 PEOPLE OF GUAM, )
7 )
)
8 )
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 ) (Defendant's Motion For Judgment of ) Acquittal)
10 JUAN JOSE TORRES )
)
11 Defendant. )
)
12 ---------------------------)
13
INTRODUCTION
14
15 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on October 17, 2012, for a
16 hearing on Juan Jose Torres' ("Defendant") Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. Attorney F. 17 Randall Cunliffe appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Assistant Attorney General Jesse J.N.
18 Nasis appeared on behalf of the People of Guam ("the People"). Upon review of the oral and 19
20 written arguments, and legal authorities presented by both attorneys, the Court hereby issues
21 this Decision and Order DENYING Defendant's Motion. 22 BACKGROUND
23 Defendant was indicted by a Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury on April 18, 2012.
24 The Grand Jury charged out the following: (1) 4 counts of Third Degree Criminal Sexual 25
26 Conduct (as a 2nd Degree Felony); (2) 2 counts of Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal rd
27 Sexual Conduct (as a 3rd Degree Felony); and (3) 2 counts Felonious Restraint (as a 3 Degree 28 Felony). Indictment (Ap. 18, 2012). On July 27, 2012, the People filed an Amended
People of Guam v. Juan Jose Torres (CF253-12) Page 1 of5 Decision and Order Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
Indictment. The Amended Indictment charged out the following: (l) Third Degree Criminal 1
2 Sexual Conduct (as a 2nd Degree Felony) and (2) 2 counts of Assault with Intent to Commit
3 Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 3rd Degree Felony). Amended Indictment (Jul. 27, 2012). 4 DISCUSSION
5 Defendant moves the Court for acquittal or in the alternative motions for an arrest of 6 judgment relative to the Second Charge in the Amended Indictment. Def's. Mot. for Judgment 7
8 of Acquittal (Aug. 3, 2012). Defendant specifically argues that the Second Charge of the
9 Amended Indictment does not allege any elements of assault as contained in 9 GCA § 19.30. 10 "Nor do they contain the element that the assault with the intent to commit criminal sexual 11 conduct involves penetration." Id.
12
13 The People oppose Defendant's motion. They argue that the evidence must be reviewed
14 in the light most favorable to the Government. Specifically, the People contend the following:
15 The Indictment is sufficient and properly charges the elements of the crime when read as a 16 whole; Assault is not a statutory element of the second charge in the Indictment; and the jury 17 instructions provided notice to the Defendant and the jurors of the necessary definitions and 18
19 elements to support the Indictment and a conviction. People's Opposition to Mot. for Judgment
20 of Acquittal or In the Alternative an Arrest of Judgment (Oct. 3, 2012). 21 A motion made after a guilty verdict is provided for in Guam law. 8 GCA § 100.30 22 specifically provides:
23
If a jury returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a 24 verdict, a motion for judgment of acquittal may be made or renewed within 25 seven days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during the seven-day period. If a verdict of guilty is returned the 26 court may on such motion set aside the verdict and enter judgment of acquittal. If no verdict is returned the court may enter judgment of acquittal. It shall not be 27 necessary to the making of such a motion that a similar motion has been made 28 prior to the submission of the case to the jury.
People of Guam v. Juan Jose Torres (CF253-l2) Page 2 of5 Decision and Order Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
8 GCA § 100.30 (2005) (emphasis added).
2 Similarly, Guam law provides grounds for arrest of judgment.
3
(a) The court on motion of a defendant shall arrest judgment if the indictment, 4 information or complaint does not charge an offense or if the court was 5 without jurisdiction of the offense charged.
(b) The motion in arrest of judgment shall be made and determined before 6 judgment is pronounced and within seven (7) days, after verdict or finding of guilty, or after plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or within such further time as 7 the court may fix during the seven-day period. When determined the order 8 shall be immediately entered by the clerk in the minutes.
9 8 GCA § 115.10 (2005). 10 In the instant case, jury selection and trial date was set on July 19,2012, in accordance 11 with Defendant's request for a jury of twelve. The jury returned with guilty verdicts for both 12
13 charges in the Amended Indictment on July 31, 2012. Defendant's motion was filed on August
14 3,2012. In view of this, the Court recognizes that Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal
15 or in the alternative an arrest of judgment was filed within seven days after a guilty verdict. 16 Accordingly, there is no issue with the time requirement prescribed by law relative to the 17 motion filing. The Court now reviews the Amended Indictment.
18
19 The second charge of the Amended Indictment alleges as follows:
20 SECOND CHARGE 21 Count One
22 On or about the period August 31, 2010, through September 1,2010, inclusive, in 23 Guam, JUAN JOSE TORRES did commit the offense of Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct, when he intentionally assaulted c.P. T.
24 (DOB: 09101/1992) with the intent to commit criminal sexual conduct, in 25 violation of9 GCA §§ 25.35 and 80.30, as amended.
26 Count Two 27 On or about the 3rd day of September, 2010, in Guam, JUAN JOSE TORRES 28 did commit the offense of Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual
People of Guam v. Juan Jose Torres (CF253-12) Page 3 of5 Deeision and Order Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
Conduct, when he intentionally assaulted c.P.T. (DOB: 09/0111992) with intent 1 to commit criminal sexual conduct, in violation of 9 GCA §§25.35 and 80.30, as 2 amended.
3 9 GCA § 25.35 reads: 4 Assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving penetration is a 5 felony in a third degree.
6 9 GCA §25.35 (2005). 7 "It is a cardinal principal of our criminal law that an indictment is sufficient which 8 apprises a defendant of the crime with which he is charged so as to enable him to prepare his 9
defense and to plead judgment of acquittal or conviction as a plea to a subsequent prosecution 10
11 for the same offense." People v. Jones, 2006 Guam 13 ~ 12 (citing Portnoy v. United States, 316
12 F.2d 486, 488 (1 st Cir. 1963). With the case at bar, the charging document tracks the language 13 of 9 GCA § 25.35 but the Second Charge did not include the word "penetration" as found in 9 14 GCA §25.35. However, the First Charge of the Amended Indictment included the word 15
16 penetration tracking the Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct language pursuant to 9 GCA §
17 25.25(a)(2). When reading the indictment as a whole, including the citation to all charges, it is 18 clear that the Defendant committed the criminal sexual conduct by means of penetration. It is 19 well established that an indictment "should be read in its entirety, construed according to 20 common sense, and interpreted to include facts which are necessarily implied." Id. (citing U. S.
21
22 v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 584 (9 th Cir. 1985). Guam law is in accordance with this view, holding
23 an indictment to be sufficient where it contains the elements of the crime alleged, adequately 24 informs the defendant of the crime to allow him to defend against the charges, and is stated with 25 sufficient clarity to bar subsequent prosecution of the same offense. Id.
26 Generally, an indictment which tracks the words of the statute charging the offense is 27
28 sufficient as long as the words unambiguously set forth all the elements of the offense. See
People of Guam v. Juan Jose Torres (CF253-12) Page 4 of5 Decision and Order Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
Jones. Based on the Court's review of the Indictment and Jury Instruction 6E providing for the 1
2 definition of Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct, the Court finds that the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Torres (People v. Torres) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.