People v. Tedtaotao, (2015)

• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No.: CRA14-015
• Decision Date: 10 November 2015
• Citation: People v. Tedtaotao, 2015 Guam 31, Supreme Court Case No.: CRA14-015 (Guam Nov 10, 2015)
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMOND TORRES TEDTAOTAO, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Guam Supreme Court

2015 Guam 31

THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMOND TORRES TEDTAOTAO, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA14-015

SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

Argued and submitted: May 13, 2015

November 10, 2015

Superior Court Case No.: CF0218-13-01

OPINION

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam

Argued and submitted on May 13, 2015

Dededo, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant:

Leevin T. Camacho, Esq.

Law Office of Leevin T. Camacho

194 Hernan Cortez Ave., Ste. 216

Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:

Brian D. Gallagher, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

Prosecution Division

590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706

Tamuning, GU 96913 BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Raymond Torres Tedtaotao appeals from a final judgment convicting him of Attempted Murder (as a First Degree Felony); First Degree Robbery (as a First Degree Felony); Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony); and Burglary (as a Second Degree Felony). Tedtaotao presents five arguments on appeal. First, Tedtaotao argues that the charge of Attempted Murder presents a legal impossibility and fails to allege an offense. Second, he argues that the People failed to provide sufficient evidence on the Attempted Murder charge. Third, he argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the Attempted Murder charge. Fourth, he argues that his Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial was violated. And fifth, he argues that a Brady violation occurred. For the following reasons, we reverse and vacate the conviction for Attempted Murder. We remand the case for resentencing and for the trial court to dismiss the Attempted Murder charge. In addition, we affirm the trial court's holding as to Tedtaotao's Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial claim. Finally, we affirm the trial court's denial of Tedtaotao's motion to exclude the testimony of the People's witness.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] On May 7, 2013, Tedtaotao was indicted for Attempted Murder (as a First Degree Felony); First Degree Robbery (as a First Degree Felony); Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony); and Burglary (as a Second Degree Felony).¹ Also named in the indictment were Anthony Paul Mendiola and Kyle James Cruz. The first charge of the indictment alleged:

On or about the 20th day of April 2013, in Guam, RAYMOND TORRES TEDTAOTAO did commit the offense of Attempted Murder, in that he attempted to cause the death of another human being, that is, R.P. under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, in violation of 9 GCA §§ 16.40(a)(2), 16.40(b), 13.60(b), and 13.10.

Record on Appeal ("RA"), tab 6 (Indictment, May 7, 2013).

[3] On May 16, 2013, Tedtaotao asserted his statutory and constitutional rights to speedy trial.

[4] The court appointed new counsel for Tedtaotao on several occasions. Tedtaotao's initial counsel withdrew from the appointment in this case because Tedtaotao was a co-actor in another of that counsel's cases, and the court appointed Tedtaotao new counsel on May 21, 2013. That attorney then moved to withdraw, and the court appointed Tedtaotao new counsel on May 24, 2013. On May 30, 2013, that attorney then moved to withdraw due to a conflict of interest. A new attorney was appointed, but that attorney moved to withdraw as counsel on June 7, 2013, claiming that appointment in this matter would impinge on the attorney's ability to diligently represent a client in another case and that the matter is personally repugnant to the attorney. After another attorney exercised his right to "pass" on his appointment pursuant to MR 1.1.3.B.4 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, the court appointed Tedtaotao new counsel on June 11, 2013. RA, tab 33 (Order Appointing Counsel, June 11, 2013). That attorney then moved to be relieved as counsel, and the attorney who represented Tedtaotao at trial was appointed on June 12, 2013.

[5] That same day, the People filed a Motion for Good Cause Continuance of Trial. The People requested that the trial be delayed six months because an essential witness, the victim, was unavailable as she was off-island receiving medical care for injuries she sustained as a result of the crimes with which the defendants were charged. On June 17, 2013, the trial court granted the People's motion. The court reasoned that good cause existed to continue the trial due to the unavailability of an essential witness. Furthermore, the trial court also found that good cause existed in order to allow additional time for the People to conduct DNA testing on Tedtaotao. However, the court refused to "delay the trial for six months . . . without sufficient justification to support such a delay in the face of Defendant['s] asserted right to a speedy trial." RA, tab 39 at 4 (Dec. & Order Re Mot. for Good Cause Continuance of Trial, June 25, 2013). The court therefore ordered the People to provide information supporting the request for a six-month delay.

[6] Jury trial commenced on November 4, 2013. Tedtaotao made several dispositive motions during the course of trial: (1) two motions to dismiss for violation of Tedtaotao's Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial; (2) a motion for judgment of acquittal for failure to provide sufficient evidence at the close of the People's case-in-chief, which was subsequently renewed at the close of Defendant's case-in-chief; and (3) a motion to exclude the testimony of Kyle Cruz, a former co-defendant, as a sanction for the People's failure to disclose exculpatory information. The trial court denied all three motions.

[7] Regarding Tedtaotao's motion to exclude the testimony of Cruz, Cruz initially made a written statement in which he stated, "Then I told [Mendiola] I don't want to do it. Then he popped out a gun and said you are." Tr. at 72 (Jury Trial Day 10, Nov. 22, 2013). Cruz later retracted that statement. The People stated that they became aware of this retraction during witness preparation after trial had already begun. The People provided no written discovery to this effect, nor did they notify Tedtaotao in any way. Tedtaotao became aware of the retraction during his cross-examination of Cruz, when Cruz testified that the statement was false and that he had retracted it.

[8] The jury found Tedtaotao guilty of Attempted Murder (as a First Degree Felony); First Degree Robbery (as a First Degree Felony); Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony); and Burglary (as a Second Degree Felony). Tedtaotao filed a timely Notice of Appeal.

II. JURISDICTION

[9] This court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment in a criminal case. 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-l(a)(2) (Westlaw current through Pub. L. 114-61 (2015)); 7 GCA §§ 3107(b), 3108(a) (2005); 8 GCA § 130.15(a) (2005).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[10] Whether a charge against a defendant lawfully alleges a crime as a result of a legal impossibility is a question of law reviewed de novo. See People v. Anastacio, 2010 Guam 18 ¶¶ 10, 16.²

[11] This court reviews de novo a defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim. People v. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 ¶ 22.

[12] "Alleged Brady violations are reviewed de novo." People v. Fisher, 2001 Guam 2 ¶ 12 (quoting United States v. Alvarez, 86 F.3d 901, 903 (9th Cir. 1996)).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The Charge of Attempted Murder Does Not Allege a Crime

[13] The first issue before this court is whether it is legally impossible to commit Attempted Murder when the underlying crime is murder committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.³ Before addressing the merits, we must examine the timeliness of raising the issue.

[14] The People seem to argue that the issue of whether the charge of Attempted Murder alleged a crime is time barred because Tedtaotao failed to challenge the defect in the indictment prior to the start of trial. Appellee's Br. at 11-12 (Jan. 24, 2015). On the other hand, Tedtaotao asserts, "At trial, Tedtaotao objected that he could not have attempted to recklessly cause the death of the victim." Appellant's Reply Br. at 2 (Feb. 6, 2015). Although both Tedtaotao and the People allege that Tedtaotao's counsel objected to the Attempted Murder charge at some point during the trial court proceedings, such objections were made in relation to the jury instructions, rather than the indictment. Appellee's Br. at 7, 11-12; Reply Br. at 2. Thus, there is no evidence in the record of an objection to the indictment, either before or during trial.

[15] Regardless, the issue of whether an indictment alleges a crime can be raised for the first time on appeal. Title 8 GCA § 65.15 reads, in pertinent part:

Any defense, objection or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion. Motions may be written or oral at the discretion of the judge. The following shall be raised prior to trial:

. . . .

(b) Defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment, information or complaint (other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense which objections shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceedings) . . . .

8 GCA § 65.15 (2005). Generally, a defendant who fails to object to an indictment prior to trial waives the objection; however, objections based on lack of jurisdiction or failure to charge an offense may be made at any time, including for the first time on appeal. See 8 GCA § 65.15(b); People v. Diaz, 2007 Guam 3 ¶ 51 ("[O]nly certain objections to an indictment may be made for the first time on appeal. Those are the limited exceptions, such as when there is an objection to jurisdiction or an assertion that the indictment failed to allege a crime."). Thus, the issue of whether the Attempted Murder charge presents a legal impossibility and fails to allege a crime is properly before this court.

[...