People v. Vargas

Opinion

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0446-18 6 GPD Report No. 18-21592 v.

7 DECISION AND ORDER LOUIS ANTHONY VARGAS, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION 8 DOB: 06/06/1985 TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING 9 INDICTMENT DUE TO IMPLIED Defendant. ACQUITTAL 10

11 INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on August 30, 2024 for 13 hearing on Louis Anthony Vargas's ("Defendant's") Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due 14 to Implied Acquittal ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney General Christine Tenorio represents the People, 15 and Assistant Public Defender Stephen Hattori represents Defendant. Having duly considered the 16 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision 17 and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On May 14, 2021, an Amended Indictment was filed, charging Defendant with Charge One 20 (Five Counts): First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct ("CSC") (as a 1st Degree Felony) and Charge 21 Two (Five Counts): Second Degree CSC (as a 1st Degree Felony), each with an accompanying Special 22 Allegation: Vulnerable Victim Enhancement. See Amended Indictment (May 14, 2021 ). The 23 charges stem from allegations that Defendant repeatedly sexually abused L.E.L. (DOB: 08/27/2008) 24 ("Victim"), a minor under the age of 13, over a multi-year period. Id. Each count of Charge One 25 alleges a different form of sexual penetration to Victim. Id. Each count of Charge Two alleges a 26 different form of sexual contact to Victim. Id. 27 A jury trial was held between April 27, 2021 and May 20, 2021. Following the trial, the jury 28 etumed a guilty verdict for Charge Two (Count Four) and its accompanying Vulnerable Victim

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due to Implied Acquittal CF0446- l 8, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas 1 Enhancement. See Verdict Forms 17 & 18 (May 20, 2021 ). However, the jury was unable to reach 2 nanimous verdicts on the other charges. See Verdict Forms 1-16, 19, & 20 (May 20, 2021). The 3 Court accepted the jury's verdicts and declared a mistrial on the charges the jury was deadlocked on. 4 See Minute Entry (May 20, 2021). 5 Defendant's convictions on Charge Two (Count Four) and its accompanying Vulnerable 6 Victim Enhancement would ultimately be vacated by the Supreme Court of Guam after they found a 7 violation of Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. See People v. Vargas, 2024 Guam 1 ,r 32. That 8 matter was remanded for a new trial. Id. at ,r 32. 9 With the Defendant's conviction now vacated, the People filed a Superseding Indictment,

IO bringing forth all the same charges and special allegations to which Defendant was originally tried in 11 2021. See Superseding Indictment (Jul. 12, 2024).

12 On July 26, 2024, Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due to 13 Implied Acquittal. Defendant claims Charge Two (Count Four) is a lesser-included offense of Charge 14 One (Count Four), as each involve the same conduct alleged on the same date. See Court Recording 15 at 10:11:20-10:13:25 (Aug. 30, 2024); Motion at 1-3 (Jul. 26, 2024). Defendant claims that his 16 conviction of Charge Two (Count Four) thereby constitutes an implied acquittal of Charge One 17 (Count Four). See Motion at 1-3 (Jul. 26, 2024). 18 On July 29, 2024, the People filed their Opposition to Motion ("Opposition"). The People 19 claim Second Degree CSC is not a lesser-included offense of First Degree CSC. See Opposition at 20 3 (Jul. 29, 2024). Therefore, the People believe Defendant's conviction of Charge Two (Count Four) 21 does not imply an acquittal of Charge One's corresponding count. Id. at 3. 22 The Court held a hearing on August 30, 2024. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the 23 Court took the matter under advisement. 24 DISCUSSION

25 Charge One (Count Four) clearly does not involve the same conduct alleged in Charge Two 26 (Count Four). Charge One (Count Four) alleges fellatio with Victim between February 1, 2018 -

27 July 22, 2018, while Charge Two (Count Four) alleges touching Victim's primary genital area on 28 July 26, 2018. See Superseding Indictment (Jul. 12, 2024). Despite continuously referring to Charge

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due to Implied Acquittal CF0446-18, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas Page 2 ofS 1 One (Count Four), Defendant's argument actually concerns Charge One (Count Five), as that is the 2 count alleging sexual intercourse with Victim on a date corresponding to Charge Two (Count Four)'s 3 alleged sexual contact. Id. The Court will therefore apply Defendant's arguments to Charge One 4 (Count Five) in its analysis. 5 I. Preliminary Law:

6 "The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from 7 epeated prosecutions for the same offense." See People v. Pablo, 2016 Guam 29 ,r 23. Under the 8 ouble Jeopardy Clause, "no person shall .... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in 9 ·eopardy oflife or limb." See U.S. Const. amend. V.

In accordance with this philosophy, a verdict of not guilty is "final", can "not be reviewed", 11 and serves as "a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense." See Ball v. US., 163 U.S. 12 662,671 (1896). However, a verdict of guilty can be reversed by a defendant's own appeal, in which 13 case he "could be tried again for the same offense ... on the ground that the appellant had 'waived' 14 is plea of former jeopardy by asking that the conviction be set aside". See Green v. US., 355 U.S. 15 184, 189 (1957) (internal citations omitted). 16 But, if a defendant is convicted of a lesser-included offense, appeals of that conviction are not 17 aivers of Double Jeopardy protections regarding the greater-included offense. Id. at 193. In that 18 ·nstance, there is no waiver of Double Jeopardy protections, rather a "coerced surrender" that cannot 19 equitably be enforced. Id. at 193. This principle was explained in Green v. US., where the Supreme 20 Court prevented retrial of First Degree Murder charges after the defendant successfully appealed his 21 conviction of the lesser-included Second Degree Murder charge. Id. at 185-191. The Supreme Court 22 reated a conviction of a lesser-included offense, when combined with a jury's failure to convict on 23 he greater-included offense, "no differently, for purposes of former jeopardy, than if the jury had a 24 eturned a verdict which expressly read: 'We find the defendant not guilty"' of the greater-included 25 offense. Id. at 191. 26 II. Defendant's conviction on Charge Two (Count Four) does not implicate the Implied

27 Acquittal Doctrine because that charge is not a lesser-included offense of any charges in 28 the indictment.

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due to Implied Acquittal CF0446-18, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas 1 Here, jeopardy had attached to all charges because the jury was empaneled and sworn in. 2 See Minute Entry (Apr. 27, 2021). 3 The only charge Defendant was initially convicted on was Charge Two (Count Four): 4 Second Degree CSC and its accompanying Vulnerable Victim Enhancement. See Verdict Forms 5 17 & 18 (May 20, 2021 ). This charge alleges that Defendant intentionally engaged in sexual 6 contact, to wit: touching the primary genital area of Victim, a minor under 14 years of age, on July 7 26, 2018. See Superseding Indictment (Jul. 12, 2024). Charge One (Count Five): First Degree 8 CSC, alleges that Defendant intentionally engaged in sexual penetration, to wit: sexual intercourse 9 with Victim, a minor under 14 years of age, on a corresponding date. Id.

Defendant's conviction of Charge Two (Count Four) does not implicate the Implied 11 Acquittal Doctrine because Charge Two (Count Four) is not a lesser-included offense of Charge 12 One (Count Five). That is to say, "Second Degree CSC is not a lesser included offense of First 13 Degree CSC". See People v. Sorgeni, 2010 Guam ,r 23. 14 Under 8 G.C.A. § 105.58(b), an offense is a lesser-included offense of another when:

15 (1) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged;

16 (2) It consists of an attempt or solicitation to commit the offense charged or to commit an offense otherwise included therein; or 17 (3) It differs from the offense charged only in respect that a less serious injury 18 or risk of injury to the same person, property or public interest or a lesser kind of culpability suffices to establish its commission.

19 Second Degree CSC is not a lesser-included offense of First Degree CSC under 8 G.C.A. § 20 105.58(b)(l)'s "same or less than all the facts" test because Second Degree CSC requires proof of 21 scienter while First Degree CSC does not. See People v. Cummins, 2010 Guam 19 ,r 19-20. Second 22 egree CSC requires "sexual contact" with the victim. See 9 G.C.A. § 25.20(a). Contact rises to 23 he level of sexual contact if it "can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual 24 arousal or gratification". See 9 G.C.A. § 25.10(a)(9). First Degree CSC requires "sexual 25 enetration" with the victim. See 9 G.C.A. § 25.15(a). Unlike sexual contact, sexual penetration 26 does not require any culpable state of mind. See 9 G.C.A. § 25.lO(a)(l0). By requiring a scienter 27

28

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due to Implied Acquittal CF0446-18, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas 1 element not contained within First Degree CSC, "Second Degree CSC is not a necessarily included 2 offense of First Degree CSC". See People v. Cummins, 2010 Guam 19 ,r 24. 3 8 G.C.A. § 105.58(b)(3) also does not suggest that Second Degree CSC is a lesser-included 4 offense of First Degree CSC. The additional facts required by Second Degree CSC are those of 5 scienter rather than injury to the victim. The kind of culpability that Second Degree CSC requires is 6 eater than that required for First Degree CSC, because Second Degree CSC requires that the action 7 "reasonably be construed as for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification", while First Degree 8 CSC does not include a scienter element. See 9 G.C.A. §§ 25.10(a)(9), (10). Therefore, 8 G.C.A. 9 105.58(b)(3) is not implicated. 10 Neither does 8 G.C.A. § 105.58(b)(2) establish Second Degree CSC as a lesser-included 11 offense of First Degree CSC. This is because "the completed crime of Second Degree CSC is 12 istinct from an 'attempted' (or otherwise inchoate) crime of First Degree CSC." See People v. 13 ongeni, 2010 Guam 20 ,r 15. 14 Because Second Degree CSC is not a lesser-included offense of First Degree CSC, 15 efendant's conviction of Charge Two (Count Four): Second Degree CSC does not constitute an 16 ·mplied acquittal of any counts of Charge One: First Degree CSC, even though Charge One (Count 17 ive)'s allegations share a corresponding date. 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion. No charges in the 20 Superseding Indictment will be dismissed on grounds of an implied acquittal in Defendant's 2021 21 trial. 22

23 24 IEIMCE,VIA EMAlL 1~knowtedl!8:11iat an eiecfronlc 25 copyo:Ulla-orig~as 9:-fflalJed-to:

26 /Jr~,fll-SC- HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 27 Qate:ff ~ ,' ,; 3 .:l;(jzlv'v

28 urtMGuam

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Due to Implied Acquittal CF0446-18, People of Guam v. Louis Anthony Vargas Page 5 ofS