F Eii 1L-I t .L"
.i-
..~Lrl'
i
J
l CLER!( CL;;F 2KOF
OFCOURT
CQUT
2z ZQ25 HOVI 313PH 2025 t!OV PH 3: I I
3
SUPEREOR CGURT SUPERiOR COURT
4 OFGUAMlt/
F GUAM/
5 IN THE
THE SUPERIOR
SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
6
7 PEOPLE OF OF GUAM,
GUAM,
8 CRIMINAL CASE NO.
CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0200-25
9 vs.
DECISION DECISION AND ORDER
10 10
l11l RALPH RALPH THOMAS WOLFORD, 12 12 Defendant. 13 13 INTRODUCTION
14
This matter
matter is before
before the
the Honorable
Honorable Vernon P.
P. Perez
Perez on
on Defendant
Defendant Ralph
Ralph Thomas
Thomas
15 15 Wolford's Walford's ("Defendant") Motion to ("Defendant") Motion to Sever Sever Charges
Charges for
for Purposes
Purposesof
of Trial
Trial ("Motion
("Motion to
to
16 16
Sever"). Assistant AssistantAttorney
AttorneyGeneral
GeneralChristine
ChristineS.S.Tenorio
Tenoriorepresents
represents the
the People
People of
ofGuam
Guam ("the
17
Government") andAssistant Government") and AssistantPublic PublicDefender
DefenderMary
MaryHill
Hill represents
representsDefendant.
Defendant. Having reviewed 18
the the pleadings, the arguments pleadings, the presented,and arguments presented, andthe therecord,
record,the
theCourt
Courtnow
now issues
issues the
the following
following
19 19 Decision Decision and and Order.
20
BACKGROUND
21
Defendant Defendant is charged with one charged with one count
countof
of Third
Third Degree Criminal
Criminal Sexual Conduct (As Sexual Conduct (As a
22
Second Degree Felony) Second Degree Felony) and and one
one count
count of
of Fourth Degree Criminal Sexual Degree Criminal Conduct (As Sexual Conduct (As a
23 23 Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). (Indictment, (Indictment, Mar. 31,l, 2025).
2025). The
The First
First Charge
Charge of Third
Third Degree Criminal Sexual Sexual
24 24 Conduct (As (As aa Second
Second Degree
Degree Felony)
Felony) alleges
alleges Defendant
Defendant engaged
engaged in
in sexual
sexual penetration
penetration with
25
M.A. M.A.(DOB:
(DOB:07/08/2003)
07/08/2003) on or about
aboutMarch
March 14,
14,2024.
2024. Id.
Id The
The Second
Second Charge of Fourth Degree 26 26
Criminal Criminal Sexual Sexual Conduct
Conduct (As
(AsaaMisdemeanor)
Misdemeanor) alleges
alleges Defendant
Defendant engaged
engaged in sexual with sexual contact with
27 27
A,M. (DOB: A.M. (DOB:05/24/2003)
05/24/2003) on or about
aboutFebruary
February 17,
17,2025.
2025.Id.
Id
28
People People v. Wolford Case No. CF0200-25 Decision Decision and Order and Order
Page Pagel1of6
off
l On August 25, 2025, 2025, Defendant
Defendant filed
filed the instant Motion, Motion, moving
movingto
to sever
sever the
the charges into
2 2 two separate trials. On separate trials. On September 8, 2025, September 8, 2025,the
theGovernment
Governmentfiled
tiledits
itsOpposition.
Opposition. No Reply was
3 filed.
filed.
4 On September September 29, 2025, the Court placed the matter under advisement without without further
further
5 argument argument from the parties. See See CR1.1
CR!. I Form
Form 3,
3, Sept.
Sept. 29, 2025.
6 DISCUSSION 7 Under Guam law, two or more offenses may be charged charged in the same indictment indictment "if
"if the
8 offenses charged are of of the same
same or
or similar
similar character
character or based on the same same act
act or
or transaction
transaction or
or
9 on two or or more
more acts
acts or transactions occurring occurring together
together or
or constituting
constitutingparts
parts of
ofaacommon
common scheme
scheme
10 IO or or plan."
plan." 88G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§55.35.
55.35. l1 Severance
Severance may
may be
be appropriate, however:
appropriate, however:
l11l IfIf ititappears appears that
that aa defendant
defendant oror the government isis prejudiced the government prejudicedby byaajoinder jointer of
of
offenses offenses or or of defendants in an defendants in an indictment indictmentor orinformation information oror by
by such
suchjoinder
jointer for
12 trial together,
together, the
the court may
may order anan election
election or
or separate
separate trials of
of counts,
counts, grant a
13 severance severance of of defendants defendantsor orprovide
provide whatever
whateverother
otherrelief
reliefjustice
justice requires.
14 8 8 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 65.25.
65.25. 22
15 In In this
this case, Defendant sets forth case, Defendant forth that that the
the charges should be severed severed because
because"[t]here
"[t]here exists
16 no facial factualnexus
nexusororwitnesses
witnesses inin common
common between
between the
the two charges," he will be charges," he be unfairly unfairly
17 prejudiced, and each prejudiced, and each charge chargewill
will involve
involve different defenses.
defenses. (Mot.
(Mot. Sever
Sever at
at 2,
2, Aug.
Aug. 25,
25, 2025).
2025).
18 The Government opposes, opposes, arguing
arguing that
that both
both allegations
allegations "involve
"involve criminal
criminalsexual
sexualconduct
conduct charges,
charges,
19 occurred within one one year of
ofeach
each other, and at
at the
the same
sameplace."
place." (Opp'n
(Opp'n at 4, Sept. 8, 2025).
Sept. 8, 2025). The
20 20
21 1 1 Section 55.35 is substantially the same as Rule 8 of the Federal Federal Rules
Rules of
of Criminal
Criminal Procedure, which provides:
Procedure, which provides:
22 22 (a) Joiner (a) JoinderofofOffenses.
Offenses.The
Theindictment oror
indictment information may infonnation charge
may separate counts defendantininseparate
chargea adefendant counts with 22 or
or more
more offenses
offenses ififthe
the offenses
offenses charged
charged -- whether
whether felonies
felonies or misdemeanors
misdemeanors or or both
both-- are
are
23 of ofthe
the same
same or
or similar
similarcharacter,
character, oror are
are based
based onon the
the same
same act or transaction,
transaction, or are connected with connected with
or constitute parts
pans of aa common scheme
scheme or or plan.
24 24 Fed. R. Crim. P. Fed. R. 8.
P. 8.
25 z2 Section Section65.35
65.35 isis substantially
substantially similar
similar to
to Rule
Rule 14
14 of
ofthe
the Federal
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
Procedure, which
26 26 IfIfthe the jointer
joinderofofoffenses
offensesorordefendants
defendants inin an
an indictment, anan information, or a consolidation consolidation for
for trial
trial
appears appears to to prejudice prejudice a defendant
defendant or or the government, government, the court may order separate trials of counts, separate trials
27 27 sever defendants'trials, sever the defendants' trials, or or provide
provide any other
other relief
relief that
that justice requires.
requires. '
28 ZN Fed. R. Crim. P. Fed. R. 14(a).
P. 14(a).
People People v.
v. Wolford
Case No.
No. CF0200-25
Decision and Decision and Order Order
Page Z of Page2of6 l Government sets sets forth
forth that "[b]oth
that "[b ]oth victims
victims worked
workedatatthe
theestablishment
establishment at
at the
the same
same time,
time, and
and
2 there appears to there appears to be the same supervisor that also worked at that also at the establishment establishment during
during both times
3 in question."
question." Id IdThe Government
The Mother
Government furtherargues
arguesthat
that the
the testimony
testimony "of
"ofboth
both adults
adults would be
4 necessary to establish the work necessary to work culture culture at
at the establishment and to establishment and to describe the Defendant as as aa
5 manager."
manager." Id at at 5.
5.
6 "[T]he "[T]he primary
primarypurpose
purpose of
ofRule
Rule 8(a) jointer isistotoensure 8(a) joinder ensure that that a giventransaction need only need only
7 7 be proved once once.. .. Where
.... Where there
there is substantial overlap in evidence between substantial overlap betweentwo twooffenses,
offenses,joinder
jointer
8 eliminates the need need to
to prove substantially the same evidence twice same evidence twice over, over, thus
thus realizing
realizing precisely
9 the kind of economy envisagedby economy envisaged byRule
Rule8(a)."
8(a)." Howerton v. United United States,
States, 964 A.2d 1282,
1282, 1292
1292
10 (D.C. 2009) (citations, internal quotation quotation marks, and alterations alterations omitted).
omitted). See
See also
also United
UnitedStates
Stales
II v. Tee/y, v. Teny, 911 F.2d 272,276 911 F.2d 272, 276(9th
(9thCir.
Cir. 1990)
1990)("When
("When ...
.. joined
joined offenses
offenses are
are not
not connected
connected and
and are
12 not provable by the same evidence,joinder same evidence, jointer isis improper.").
improper."). Rule
Rule 8(a)
8(a) is
is "construed broadly in
"construed broadly
13 favor of initial favor jointer." United initial joinder." United States Walser, 33 F.3d v. Walker,
States v. F.3d 380, 385 (I 380, 385 (lath
Ith Cir.
Cir. 1993)
1993) (citation
(citation
14 omitted).
omitted).
15 15 We consider consider itit appropriate appropriate toto consider considerfactors
factorssuch
such asas the
the elements of ofthe
the statutory
statutory
offenses, offenses, the
the temporal proximity of ofthe the acts, the
the likelihood
likelihood and extentofevidentiary of evidentiary
16 overlap, the
the physical location
locationofofthe
theacts,
acts,the
the modus
modus operandi
operandi of ofthe
the crimes,
crimes, and
and the
17 identity identity of
of the
the victims
victims ininassessing
assessing whether
whether an an indictment
indictment meetsmeets the the "same "same or
18 similar character"
character"prong
prongof of Rule
Rule 8(a). The weight
weight given
given toto aa particular factor will particular factor will depend on thethe specific specific context
contextof ofthe
thecase
case and
and the allegations
allegations in in the
the indictment.
indictment. But
19 the the bottom
bottom line is is that
that the
the similar
similar character
character of of the
the joined offenses
offenses should
should be
20 20 ascertainable-either ascertainable-eitherreadilyreadilyapparent reasonablyinferred-from apparent or reasonably inferred-from the the face of ofthe
the
indictment. indictment.
21 United United States States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 578 578 (9th
(9th Cir.
Cir. 2007).
2007).
22 22 Here, although the
the Indictment
Indictment identifies two separate separate victims, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that the
the
23 23 charges are properly charges are properly joined. The charges are similar charges are similar in nacre:
nature: Defendant
Defendant is
is accused
accused of
of
24 24 committing committing sexual sexual assault
assault against adult
adultvictims
victims while
while he
he was working
working as
as a manager at
atTGI
TGI Fridays
25 in Tumon.
of. (Deal.
(Deel. ofofChristine
Christine S.
S. Tenorio,
Tenorio, Magistrate's Comal., Mar.
Magistrate's Comp!., Mar. 22, 22, 2025).
2025). The alleged
alleged
26 26 events occurred roughly eleven eleven months
months apart
apart (March
(March 2024
2024 and
and February 2025). Further, February 2025). Further, as as the
the
27 Government sets forth, forth, even ififthe
the Court
Court were to
to sever
sever the
the counts as to
counts as to each alleged alleged victim, each
each
28
People v.
v. Wolford
Case No. CF0200-25 Case No. CF0200-25 Decision Decision and Order Order
Page Page 3 of6 l victim may may still
still testify
testify atat the
the other's
other'ssevered
severed trial
trialpursuant
pursuant to
to Rule 413. 3 See,
Rule413.3 See, e.g.,
e.g., People
People v.
v.
2 Gaines, 856 Gaines, 856 N.W.2d 222, 222, 236 (Mich.
(Mich. 2014)
2014) ("Because
("Becausedefendant's
defendant's actions
actions against
against each
each victim
3
4 3 Although Although thethe Court Court does not have
have aa Rule
Rule 413
413 Motion before it as the Motion before charges are the charges currently joined, are currently joined, the theCourt
Court will
will
5 briefly address the briefly address the issue to explain why the Government why the would be Government would be able able ro
to call
call each
each victim
victimtoto testify
testify as
as aa witness
witness atat
the other's trial trial if the
the chargers
chargerswere
weresevered.
severed. Further,
Further, while
while Defendant
Defendant argues
arguesaajoint
jointtrial
trial"would
"would allow
allow forfor improper
6 character evidence evidence in in violation violation of Rule 404(b),"see ofRule404(b)," seeMot.
Mot.Sever at 2, the
Severate, the Court
Court applies a RuleRule 413 413 analysis
analysis for
for criminal
criminal
sexual conduct cases. sexual Guam's Rule cases. Guam's Rule 413 413 isis substantially
substantially similar
similar to
to the Federal
Federal Rules
Rules of Evidence
Evidence 413, which was
7 enacted by Congress as a fundamental enacted fundamental exception exception toto Rule 404(b). People Peoplev,v.Chisel,
Chine/,2013
2013Guam
Guam 2424 ,r,r 21-22,
1111 21-22. ItsIts
8 purpose "was to to supersedeRule Rule 404(b) 's prohibition on evidence oflike conduct showing propensity in sexual assault 404(b)'s prohibition on evidence of like conduct showing propensity in sexual assault cases." Id 'I[ Idatat1121. Forevidence For admissibleunder be admissible
evidencetotobe underRule Rule413,
413, the
the following
followingelements
elementsmustmust bebe met:
met:
9 the defendant
First, the defendant in the the present
present case
case must
must be
be accused
accused of
of sexual
sexual assault. Second, the assault. Second, the evidence 10 IO of the proffered must be evidence of the defendant's defendant's commission
commission of
ofanother
another past
past act
act of
of sexual
sexual assault.
assault.
Third, the past act must be relevant, Third, the relevant, meaning that that its
its existence
existence must make
make any fact at
at issue
issue more
more or
II less probable than than if
if such evidence were excluded.
excluded,
12 12 Chine/, 2013 ChineL Guam 2411 2013 Guam 241[ 25 (internal (internal citations omitted). The first omitted). The first and
and second
second prongs
prongs are
are clearly
clearly met
met as
as Defendant is
of committing
accused of committing sexual sexual assault against both assault against both victims.
victims. The
The third prong isis also third prong alsomet met as
as the
the evidence
evidence is
is relevant
relevant
13 13 because it would present evidence of present evidence of past
past criminal
criminal sexual
sexual conduct which is
is usually
usually probative
probative of
ofa current allegation
of criminal of criminal sexual sexual conduct. See id
conduct. See ,r 28 (citing Doe ex rel.
id atat 1128 rel. Rudy-Glanzer v.
v. Glanzer, 232F.3d
Glarier, 232 F.3d1258,
1258, 1268
1268 (9th
(9th
14 14 Cir. 2000)) Cir. 2000)) ("it ("it is
is generally
generally accepted
accepted that
that a defendant
defendant with
with a propensity
propensity to
to commit acts similar to those similar to those charged is more more likely likely to
to have
have committed
committed the
the act than another and
than another andtherefore thereforesuch
suchevidence
evidenceisisrelevant.").
relevant.").Additionally, Additionally, Rule
Rule
15 15 413 simply 413 simply states "another offense states "another offense or offenses offenses of criminal sexual conduct."
conduct." It
It does
does not
not contain
contain any
any "inherent
"inherent
16 limitation." See, e.g., chronological limitation," e.g., U»1itedSIates v. Sioux, United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d F.3d 1241
1241 (9th
(9th Cir. 2004) ("we
("we have
have little
littledoubt
doubt that
that
the plain language language of
of the
the rule
rule permits
permits admission
admission ofofsubsequent
subsequent acts
acts evidence
evidence to
to the
the same
same extent
extent itit permits
permits the
the
17 introduction introduction of ofevidence
evidence tending
tending to
to demonstrate prior
prior acts
acts of
of sexual
sexual misconduct.").
misconduct.").
The The Court
Court then
then turns to aRule
Rule 403 analysis.
analysis. See
See People
Peoplev.
v. Wesen,
Wesen, 2022 Guam 18 ,r ("even Guam 181147 ("even when evidence 18 qualifies under under GRE 413, Chine/
GRE 413, Chine/ requires courts to conduct a GRE 403 analysis GRE 403 analysis using
using framework
framework as
as provided in
19 19 States v.v. LeMay").
United States The Court LeMmy"). The evaluates: "(1)
Court evaluates: "(!) the of the the similarity of the prior prior acts
acts to
to the
the acts
acts charged,
charged; (2) the
in time
closeness in time of ofthe
the prior
prior acts
acts to
to the
the acts
acts charged, frequency of charged; (3) the frequency ofthe the prior
prior acts,
acts; (4) the
the presence
presenceor
or lack
lack of
of
20 20 intervening circumstances, intervening circumstances; and (5) the the necessity
necessity of the
the evidence beyond the
the testimonies
testimonies already
already offered at trial."
trial."
Chine/, 2013 Guam 24 ,ri139 (citing Chisel, (citing United United States
States v.
v. LeMmy,
leMay, 260
260 F.3d 1018,
1018, 1028 (9th Cir.
1028 (9th Cir. 2001)).
2001)). The Court
Court does
21 not have not have to to specifically address each factor, but but must
must conduct a searching inquiry.
inquiry. Chisel,
Chine/, 2013
2013 Guam 24 ii,r 39
Guam 24 39
22 (stating that the LeMmy (stating leMay factors are not exhaustive exhaustive or
or mandatory
mandatory and
and that the
the trial
trial courts may consider additional additional
factors or may may ignore
ignore any
any of
ofthe
the factors
factors that
that are irrelevant).
23 23 In In evaluating
evaluating the
the factors, the Court notes factors, the the following: Defendant notes the Defendant is accused accused of
of committing
committing sexual
sexual
penetration penetration and sexual contact against the victims victims roughly
roughlyeleven
eleven(l(11)
1) months
months apart
apart and
and at
at the same location, TGI same location, TGI
24 24 Fridays Fridays in in Tum of. As
Tumon. Asnoted
notedearlier,
earlier,"[b]oth
"[b]othvictims
victimsworked
worked thestablishment the
at at establishmentatathe thesame
sametime,
time, and
and there
there appears
that also
to be the same supervisor that also worked at the the establishment
establishment during
during both
both times
timesin
in question." (Opp'n at
question." (Opp'n at 4). The 25 Government sets Government sets forth that the testimony that the testimony of
of both
both victims
victims "would be necessary "would be necessary to
to establish
establish the
the work culture
culture at
at the
the
26 establishment and to to describe
describe Defendant
Defendant as a manager.
manager. Id. at 5. "Prior at 5. "Prioracts
acts evidence
evidence need
need not absolutely necessa,y not be absolutely necessary to the prosecution's prosecution's case
case in order
order to
to be
be introduced;
introduced, ititmust
mustsimply
simplybe
behelpful
helpfulor
orpractically
practically necessa,y."
neeessa/y." leMay,
LeMan, 260
260
27 27 F.3d F.3d at 1029 (emphasis in 1029 (emphasis original). Thus, in original). Thus,the
the Court
Courtfinds
findsthat
that M.A.
M.A.(DOB:
(DOB:07/08/2003)
07/08/2003) would
wouldbe
be able
able to
to testify
testify as
the acts to the acts committed committed against
against her
her by
by Defendant
Defendant in
in trial
trial for A.M. (DOB:05/24/2003)
A.M. (DOB: 05/24/2003) and and vice
viceversa
versaas
as the
the acts
acts meet
meet
28 the threshold requirements requirements of
of Rule
Rule 413 and Rule
Rule 403.
People People v. Wolford Case No. CF0200-25 Decision Decision and and Order
Order
Page 4 of6 Page 1 were admissible admissible in each case pursuanttoto[Michigan's case pursuant [Michigan's analogous analogousRule
Rule 413],
413], each
each victim
victim would
2 have been required have been to testify required to testify in
in each
each trial
trial if
if the
the cases were tried
cases were separately.Joinder tried separately. Joiner offered offered
3 3 convenience convenience to to the
the victims,
victims,who
whohad
hadalready
alreadysuffered
sufferedharassment
harassment in
in their
their communities
communities as
as aa result
4 of of these cases.").
these cases.").
5 Even ififoffenses offenses are
are properly
properly joined,
joined, the
the Court
Court may
may grant severance of
grant severance of the
the offenses
offenses if
6 Defendant Defendant isis prejudiced prejudicedby
by such
suchjoinder.
jointer. See United
United States
States v. Whitworth,
Whitworth, 856
856 F.2d 1268,
1268, 1277
1277
7 7 (9th Cir. 1988)
1988) (requiring aa showing that "jointer was that "joinder was so
so manifestly
manifestly prejudicial
prejudicial that
that it outweighed
8 the dominant concern the dominant concernwith withjudicial
judicial economy and
and compelled
compelled exercise of
ofthe
the court's
court's discretion to
9 sever.").
sever."). "The "Theprime
primeconsideration
considerationinindetermining determiningwhether
whether or
or not
not to
to grant
grant aa severance
severance is
is the
the
o 10 possibility of ofprejudice
prejudice to
to the
the defendant
defendant in
in conducting
conducting his
his defense.
defense. Weighing the
the danger
danger of
11 confusion and undue confusion and undue cumulative cumulativeinference
inferenceisis aa matter
matter for
for the
the trial
trial judge within
within his
his sound
sound
12 discretion."
discretion." Johnson v. United United States,
States, 356 F.2d 680,
680, 682
682 (8th Cir.
Cir. 1966), cert.
cert. denied,
denied, 385
385 U.S.
13 857 (1966).
(1966). "It "Itisisnot
notenough
enough simply
simply to
to show
show that suchjoinder makes that suchjoinder makesititmore moredifficult
difficult to
to defend."
defend."
14 Id Id (citations (citations omitted).
omitted).
15 15 Here, Here, Defendant
Defendant argues he will argues that he will be
be prejudiced because "the jury because "the jury would not be able to
16 16 compartmentalize evidence concerning compartmentalize evidence concerning charge charge one
one from
from evidence concerning
concerning charge
charge two"
two" and
17 there "is a strong likelihood likelihood and
and danger
danger that the jury would would assume [he] is guilty assume [he] guilty on
on one
one charge
charge
rs 18 based on evidence based on evidenceused usedfor
foranother."
another." (Mot. Sever
Sever at 2).
2). The
The Court
Court acknowledges
acknowledges Defendant's
19 I argument that he argument that he may may suffer
suffer some
some risk
risk of prejudice ififthe the charges
charges are not severed, however, it is severed, however,
20 20 not not convinced convinced at at this time
time that such prejudice
prejudice rises to
to aalevel
level requiring
requiring severance. See, Ag., United See, e.g., United
21 States v.
v. Begun,
Begun, 446 F.2d
F.2d 32, 33
33 (9th Cir. 1971)
1971) ("an
("an important
important factor in
in determining
determining whether
whether
Z2 22 exists is prejudice exists whether the is whether the evidence
evidence of
of one
one of
ofthe
the crimes
crimes would
would be
be admissible
admissible in
in aa separate
separate
23 23 trial for for the
the other crime. IfIfthe
theanswer
answer is
is affirmative,
affirmative, the
the jointer
joinderofofoffenses,
offenses,ininmost
mostinstances,
instances,
24 will not not be prejudicial.").
prejudicial."). "Even
"Evenwhere
wherethere
there may
may be some
some risk
risk of
of prejudice,
prejudice, if
if the
the possibility
possibility of
of
25 prejudice may be cured by by aa cautionary
cautionary instruction
instruction severance
severance is not required."
required." United
United Slates
States v.
v.
26 26 Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 380, 385
385(11th
(l ltd Cir.
Cir. 1993)
l993) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
omitted). The Court
Court finds
27 27 the use that the useof of limiting
limiting instructions will prevent prevent the jury's verdict the jury's verdicton
on any
any one
one charge
charge to affect
affect the
28
People People v.v. Wolford Wowed
Case No. CF0200-25 Case No. CFOZ00-25 Decision Decision and Order Order
Page Page 5 of66 l jury's verdict jury's verdict on any other other charge. "Juries
"Juries are
are presumed
presumed to
to follow
follow their
their instructions." Zafiro v.
22 States, 506 U.S. 534, 540 (1993) (citation omitted).
United States,
3 3 Defendant also argues Defendant also argues that he will will be
be prejudiced because his prejudiced because "rights under the his "rights Fifth the Fifth
4 Amendment Amendment to to the
the United
United States
States Constitution
Constitution would
would likely
likely be
be jeopardized by a failure to sever 55 these charges."
charges." (Mot.
(Mot. Sever
Sever at
at 2). Defendant asserts that he would be prejudiced if "he wished 2). Defendant
6 involved in charge one but not the events involved in charge two."
to testify concerning the events involved
77 Id. at2-3.
at 2-3.The
TheGovemrnent
Governmentargues
arguesthat
thatDefendant
Defendanthas madeaasufficient notmade
hasnot showing of sufficient showing prejudice ofprejudice
8 8 sentence hypothetical based on a "one sentence hypothetical assertion." (Opp'n atat 5).
assertion." (Opp'n TheCourt 5). The inclined to Courtisisinclined agree.
to agree.
g 9 of proving joinder Defendant has "the burden of of the jointer of charges was the charges prejudicial in confounding his was prejudicial
10 10 defense by compromising compromising his
his privilege
privilege against
against self-incrimination." P.2d self-incrimination." State v. Martin, 926 P.2d 11 1380, 1380, 1388 (Mont. 1996).
1388 (Mont. 1996). "A defendant defendant advancing
advancing such a theory must make theory must convincing make aa convincing
12 12 showing that that he
he has both
both important concerning one count and the strong need to give concerning
important testimony to
13 13 to refrain from testifying refrain from testifying on the other." 1026 (7th 1018, 1026
other." United States v. Kelly, 99 F.4th 1018, Cir.
(7th Cir.
14 2024), cert.
cert. denied,
denied, 145 S. Ct. 276 (2024)
(2024) (citation
(citation omitted). Defendant Defendant has
has not identified what
not identified
15 testimony he would give about one alleged victim nor why he would have a strong need not to alleged victim
16 16 testify about the testify about the other.
other. AA"one
"onesentence
sentenceassertion
assertion that
that[Defendant's] ptivilege against [Defendant's] privilege selfagainst self-
17 incrimination would be incrimination would be compromised compromised isis insufficient insufficient to
to prove
prove the of this existence of
the existence of this type of
18 prejudice." Martin, Martin, 926 P.2d at
at 1388.
1388. Therefore,
Therefore, the
the Court
Court denies Defendant's to Sever.
Motion to
Defendant's Motion
19 CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing foregoing reasons,
reasons, the Court
Court hereby
hereby DENIES
DENIES Defendant's Motion Motion to
to Sever.
Sever.
21 December 2, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
Parties shall return for a Pre-Trial Conference on December 22 22 ....l1 23 IT IS SO ORDERED this II◊ day of 23"
of November, 2025.
24 SERVI VIA SERVICE VI E•MAIL
A E-MAIL
II acknowledge
acknowledge that
that an
an electronic
25 25 copy or the copy of tho original w.15 was a-mailed to:
.1
HONORABLE HONORABLE VERNON p. P. PEREZ PEREZ
26 n, pm. Judge, Superior Superior Court of Guam
27 27 \m\'r1 ~. . \$PM \~h\\';o?~,j.\%
D
W\ `l1me Time
28 28 Hannah HannahG.
G.E1more(A/
ElmorefA_/
Deputy Clel1<, Superior Court ol Guam
People People v.
v. Wolford
Case No.
No CF0200-25
CF0200-25
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 6 of
of6