People v. Wright

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: April 19, 2013
• Docket: CF0467-12
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0467-12 4 vs. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER GORDON LEE WRIGHT, ) 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 _____________________________ ) 8 INTRODUCTION 9 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motions to 10 dismiss and to suppress, filed March 11, 20 13. Oral arguments were heard on April 8, 2013. 11 Assistant Attorney General Brian D. Gallagher, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Government and 12 Attorney Peter C. Perez, Esq. represented the Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, 13 oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 14 BACKGROUND 15 Defendant is charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault based upon the 16 following allegations. On July 28, 2012, Guam Police Officer John P.T. Lizama arrived at the 17 scene of an alleged shooting in Dededo. (Testimony of John P.T. Lizama, Record Log at 9:39, 18 Apr. 8, 2013.) Witnesses did not see the shooter but they did see a truck drive away from the 19 scene. !d. Witnesses also identified the Defendant as the victim's neighbor. !d. The victim 20 was transported to the airport for medical treatment off-island, where he allegedly identified 21 Defendant as the shooter in a photo lineup conducted by airport police. !d. 22 On August 2, 2012, Defendant voluntarily met with Officer Lizama at the police station. 23 !d. The interview began at 5:45 p.m. when Officer Lizama asked Defendant for some 24 identification and then verified the information on Defendant's driver's license. !d. and 25 Defendant's Exhibit "1" at 2 (Apr. 8, 2013). Officer Lizama then informed Defendant of his 26 rights at 5:48 p.m., which Defendant waived in writing before making oral and written 27 statements. !d. and Defendant's Exhibit "1" at 4-6. 28 Ill

Page 1 of 4 On August 10, 2012, Defendant was indicted on the following charges: 2 FIRST CHARGE 3 On or about the 28th day of July 2012, in Guam, GORDON LEE WRIGHT, did 4 commit the offense of Attempted Murder, in that he did, intentionally and knowingly attempted [sic] to cause the death of a human being, that is, DanielL. 5 Crane, in violation of9 G.C.A. §§ 16.40(a)(1) and (b) and 13.10. 6 SPECIAL ALLEGATION 7 Possession and Use ofa Deadly Weapon in the Commission ofa Felony

8 On or about the 28th day of July 2012, in Guam, GORDON LEE WRIGHT, did knowingly and unlawfully possess and use a deadly weapon, that is, a firearm, in 9 1 the commission of a felony, that is, Attempted Murder (As a F Degree Felony), 10 as alleged in the First Charge above, in violation of9 G.C.A. § 80.37.

11 SECOND CHARGE 12 On or about the 28th day of July 2012, in Guam, GORDON LEE WRIGHT, did 13 commit the offense of Aggravated Assault, in that he did, recklessly cause serious bodily injury to another, Daniel L. Crane, in circumstances manifesting extreme 14 indifference to the value of human life, in violation of 9 G.C.A. §§ 19.20(a)(1) 15 and (b).

16 SPECIAL ALLEGATION Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission ofa Felony 17

18 On or about the 28th day of July 2012, in Guam, GORDON LEE WRIGHT, did knowingly and unlawfully possess and use a deadly weapon, that is, a firearm, in 19 the commission of a felony, that is, Aggravated Assault (As a 2nd Degree Felony), as alleged in the Second Charge above, in violation of9 G.C.A. § 80.37. 20

21 (Indictment, Aug. 10, 2012.)

22 On March 11, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to suppress statements to police

23 and the present motion to dismiss the indictment under 8 GCA § 55.1 0. Defendant argues that

24 he was not informed ofhis rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) until three (3)

25 minutes after his interview began and that the indictment does not notify him of the conduct that

26 forms the basis of the charges. The Government argues that Defendant was informed of his

27 rights before he made any custodial statements and, secondly, that the indictment notifies

28 Defendant with a plain, concise and definite statement of the essential facts of the offense.

Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION

2 1. Indictment 3 Under Guam law, a criminal indictment "shall be a plain, concise and definite written 4 statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." 8 GCA § 55.10(a). An 5 indictment is "sufficient where it contains the elements of the crime alleged, adequately informs 6 the defendant of the crime to allow him to defend against the charges, and is stated with 7 sufficient clarity to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense." People v. Jones, 2006 8 Guam 13 ~ 12. "Furthermore, it is also well established that an indictment should be read in its 9 entirety, construed according to common sense, and interpreted to include facts which are 10 necessarily implied." !d. (quoting US. v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 584 (9th Cir. 1985)). 11 In this case, the indictment contains the language of the relevant offenses and identifies 12 the date, place, victim, weapon and Defendant. When the indictment is read in its entirety 13 according to common sense, it is clear that Defendant is charged with seriously injuring and 14 attempting to kill Daniel L. Crane with a gun on July 28, 2012 in Guam. The indictment 15 remains sufficient without a description of how Defendant used the gun because that particular 16 fact is necessarily implied from the allegations of serious bodily injury and the attempt to cause 17 death. The indictment adequately informs Defendant of which crimes he must defend against 18 and it is clear enough to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense of gun violence 19 causing serious injury against Daniel L. Crane on July 28, 2012. For this reason, the indictment

20 is sufficient and it shall not be dismissed.

21 2. Statements to Police 22 Under Guam law, a Miranda warning is only required for suspects whose freedom is 23 restrained under police custody and warnings are not required "simply because the questioning 24 takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police 25 suspect." People v. Santos, 2003 Guam 1 ~ 45 (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 26 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714 (1977)). A suspect is in custody for the purposes of Miranda when the 27 circumstances do not allow a reasonable person to feel free to leave. !d. at~ 51. 28

Page 3 of 4 A suspect in police custody must be informed of their rights prior to an interrogation or 2 else the statements elicited by police are inadmissible. People v. Farata, 2007 Guam 8, 20. 3 An interrogation occurs when a defendant is asked questions in custody which police can expect 4 will elicit any incriminating response that the prosecution may seek to introduce at trial. !d. at , 5 36 (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 n. 5 (1980)). However, the privilege 6 against compelled self-incrimination "does not protect a suspect from being compelled by the 7 State to produce real or physical evidence." Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 589, 110 8 S.Ct. 2638, 2643, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). 9 In this case, assuming arguendo that Defendant was in custody when he voluntarily met 10 with Officer Lizama, he did not make any incriminating responses or confessions before he was 11 advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant was asked to produce physical evidence of 12 identification before the interrogation and the Miranda warning began. This evidence is not 13 protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the police did not 14 elicit any custodial statement or incriminating response until after Defendant was advised of his 15 Fifth Amendment rights. For this reason, Defendant's statements to police shall not be 16 suppressed. 17 Ill 18 Ill 19 Ill 20 CONCLUSION 21 Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED and 22 Defendant's motion to suppress is hereby DENIED. 23

24 SO ORDERED this fl1ff day of April, 2013. 25

28 Judge, Superior Court of Guam

Page 4 of4