People v. Wolphagen

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 4, 2013
• Docket: CM0357-12
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE No. CM 0357-12 4 ) ) 5 V. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) On Defendant's Motion for Leave to 6 RUDOLF WOLPHAGEN, ) Place Mental State at Issue and to 7 ) Submit Medical Records Under Seal Defendant. ) 8

INTRODUCTION 11

12 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on September 12, 201 13 on Defendant's Motion for Leave to Place Defendant's Mental State at Issue and to Submi 14 Medical Records Under Seal. The People of Guam were represented by Assistant Attome 15 General Christina Lum. The Defendant was represented by Assistant Public Defender Mari 16

17 Fitzpatrick. Having reviewed the memorandum and papers presented, the court now issues th

18 following decision GRANTING the Defendant's Motion for Leave to Place Defendant's Menta 19 State at Issue and DENYING the Motion to Submit Medical Records Under Seal. 20

21 FACTUAL HISTORY 22

23 The Defendant is charged with two counts of misdemeanor Family Violence and one coun

24 of misdemeanor Assault for acts alleged to have occurred on April 6, 2012. The Defendant wa 25 arraigned on April 18, 2012 and filed the current motion on September 10, 2012. The Defendan 26 now moves to place his mental state at issue before the court and, if granted, asks that hi 27

28 medical records be placed under seal.

Page 1 of5 Guam law requires that a Defendant plead the affirmative defense of mental illness, diseas 2 or defect no later than ten days after arraignment. 7 GCA §7.22(d). Based upon the nearly fiv 3 month lapse of time between the Defendant's arraignment and his current motion, the Peopl 4 oppose allowing the Defendant to place his mental state at issue. For the following reasons, th 5

6 Court grants the Defendant's motion to place his mental state at issue before the court and denie

7 the Defendant's motion to place his medical records under seal. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Guam law protects the right of defendants to plead the affirmative defense of menta 10

II illness, disease or defect to pending criminal charges. 7 GCA §7.22. A defendant should plea

12 the defense within ten days of arraignment, unless good cause for delay is demonstrated. !d. I 13 the case presently before the Court, the Defendant has moved to enter a plea of not guilty b 14 reason of mental disease or defect, but has done so nearly five months after his arraignment. Th 15 Defendant has further moved to have his medical records kept under seal, should his not guilt 16

17 plea be allowed to go forward. The People oppose the Defendant's motion based solely upon th

18 fact that the plea was not entered within ten days of arraignment, but are silent on th 19 Defendant's request to keep his medical records under seal. 20 I. The Defendant Has Demonstrated Good Cause for Delaying his Plea 21 That a defendant is unable to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease o 22

23 defect within ten days of arraignment is not an absolute bar to the entering the affirmativ

24 defense. Guam law recognizes that there are circumstances that may necessitate a defendan 25 pleading not guilty at a later date and grants the court the discretion to accept the plea wher 26 good cause is demonstrated. Specifically, the law states that the defendant shall plead "not late 27

Page 2 of5 than ten days after his arraignment or at such later time as the court for good cause may allow.' 2 7 GCA §7.22(d) (emphasis added). 3 Guam's statute was modeled after California law. California case law provides guideline 4 for determining "good cause" in accepting a change of plea to not guilty by reason of menta 5

6 disease or defect. In California the defendant "should be required to produce evidence whic

7 would show the trial judge that there were reasonable grounds to believe that at the time of th 8 commission of the crime he was legally insane." People v. Hererra, 163 Cal.Rptr 435, 43 9 (1980) (citing People v. Morgan, 50 P2d. 1051, 1062). Such evidence includes medical record IO

II of previously conducted psychiatric evaluation and treatment. See !d. Accordingly, a change to

12 plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect may even be accepted after th

13 commencement of trial where its denial may result in the "withdrawal of a crucial defense." In r 14 Kubler, 126 Cal.Rptr. 25 (1975). 15 The Defendant can provide the court with medical records detailing previous psychiatri I6

17 evaluation and treatment. The Defendant has been undergoing treatment with the Veteran'

18 Administration ('VA') and claims to have been recently diagnosed with post-traumatic stres 19 disorder. The People oppose the Court allowing the Defendant to change his plea based solei 20 upon the fact that the motion comes more than ten days after arraignment. Because th 21 Defendant can provide evidence that may implicate his mental state at the time of his allege 22

23 crimes, the Court's will not use its discretion to deny the affirmative defense based solely upon

24 technical argument. 25 II. The Defendant Has not Demonstrated a Need to Seal His Records 26 The Defendant has also motioned the Court to have the medical records supporting hi 27

28 affirmative defense sealed. The motion specifically states that he is making this request "so the

Page 3 of5 [the records] do not become public." This is the motion's sole sentence in support of the reques 2 to seal. The Defendant offers no other explanation for his request and provides no legal suppo 3 from either case law or statute. 4 There is a presumption in favor of allowing the public access to court records. Foltz v. 5

6 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, the Co

7 recognizes that there are circumstances under which a defendant has a valid reason for requestin 8 to have records sealed. Because public policy favors disclosure of records, however, a defendan 9 must articulate "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings," Kamakana v. Ci 10

11 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)(citing Foltz at 1135). That "th

12 production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment" is not enough "without more, [to] 13 compel the court to seal its records." Foltz at 1136. 14 Guam law also requires that the Defendant support his motion to seal with greate 15 specificity. All motions before the Superior Court "shall state with particularity the ground 16

17 therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." GRCP 7. The motion's single sentenc

18 requesting that the medical records be sealed "so they do not become public records" does no 19 meet this statutory standard. Without a stating, with particularity, why the medical record 20 should be sealed, the Court finds no basis for granting the motion. 21

Page 4 of5 CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion for Leave to Plac 3 Defendant's Mental State at Issue. Because the Defendant has provided the Court with no reaso 4 that his records should be sealed, the Court DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Submit Medica

I 5

6 Records Under Seal. Further Proceedings are set for f/fC, ;)OJ'; ~at 9arn. 7 LJ ~.T~ ~1'3 8 SO ORDERED, this _llj_ day o~ 9

Page 5 of5