People v. Bosi, (2022)

2022 Guam 15

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. RENATO CAPILI BOSI, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee

No. CRA19-015

Supreme Court of Guam

December 27, 2022

Argued and submitted on December 2, 2020 Via Zoom video conference

Appeal from the Superior Court, No. CF0596-17 of Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: David J. Highsmith, Esq Assistant Public Defender Public Defender Service Corporation

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Marianne Woloschuk, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice; and KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

OPINION

CARBULLIDO, C.J.

[1] Defendant-Appellant Renato Capili Bosi appeals from his criminal judgment of conviction and denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. A jury found Bosi guilty of five offenses: two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony) ("CSC II"), two counts of Fourth Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a Misdemeanor) ("CSC IV"), and one count of Child Abuse (As a Misdemeanor). At sentencing, however, the trial court invoked its power under 9 GCA § 80.22 to reduce Bosi's two convictions for CSC II to convictions for CSC IV, as a lesser included offense of CSC II. On appeal, Bosi assigns error to the sufficiency of evidence, sufficiency of indictment, omission of a jury instruction, and the admission of certain evidence.^[1]The People of Guam cross-appeal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by reducing Bosi's CSC II convictions. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] The following evidence was presented. Before his arrest, Bosi was a pastor at the Living Lighthouse Baptist Church. Through the church, he became acquainted with a young female member of his congregation, A.D.G., who moved to Guam from the Philippines in April 2015.

[3] By May 2016, the relationship between Bosi and A.D.G. had become personal and close. A.D.G. testified that because she was having problems at home, her parents entrusted her to the Bosi family's care. Bosi's wife testified that A.D.G.'s father allowed A.D.G. to spend weekends with the Bosi family so she could learn "godly things, and household chores." Transcript ("Tr.") at 20 (Jury Trial, Apr. 16, 2019). During a period where A.D.G.'s mother was in the Philippines, Bosi suggested that A.D.G. stay with him and his wife, and A.D.G.'s father agreed because he trusted Bosi and considered him to be "like a brother." Tr. at 14 (Jury Trial, Apr. 15, 2019).

[4] While staying in the Bosi household, A.D.G. performed household chores and received guidance from Bosi on what he considered appropriate or inappropriate behavior, see, e.g., Tr. at 42-45 (Jury Trial, Apr. 16, 2019) (lecturing A.D.G. about having a boyfriend); id. at 64-65 (counseling A.D.G. about propriety of a photo she posted on Facebook). A.D.G.'s mother testified that at one point, Bosi took A.D.G.'s cell phone and read all the messages between her and her boyfriend aloud in front of Mrs. Bosi and other individuals, and that A.D.G. cried while he did so. Multiple witnesses testified that A.D.G. was treated as a member of the Bosi family.

[5] A.D.G. testified that in May 2016, when she was 14 years old, Bosi improperly touched her intimate areas on two occasions. Both incidents occurred while A.D.G. was washing dishes at the Bosi family home. In the first incident, Bosi touched A.D.G.'s buttocks over her clothes; A.D.G. testified that she at first believed this touching may have been "an accident." Tr. at 87 (Jury Trial, Apr. 15, 2019). A.D.G. also testified to a second incident, in which Bosi placed his hand between A.D.G.'s legs and touched her primary genital area over her clothes.

[6] A.D.G. also testified about several unusual interactions between her and Bosi in the months following May 2016. In one incident, A.D.G. testified that Bosi came to visit her at her home and "forcibly kissed" her on the lips twice. Id. at 88-89, 108. In another incident, she alleged that Bosi purchased "Spandex" undergarments for her; Bosi told A.D.G. to keep these undergarments hidden from her parents and to not tell Bosi's wife about this gift. Id. at 90-91. In a third incident, Bosi sent A.D.G. an email in response to a photograph she had posted to Facebook, telling her that her lips looked "very kissable." Id. at 91. A.D.G. also testified that Bosi often called her cell phone and sent her emails, and then told her to delete these emails "because his wife didn't know about our communication." Id. at 90, 92. When asked about the effect of Bosi's affections, A.D.G. stated that his actions "suffocated me to the point where I became suicidal." Id. at 95. A.D.G. also left the Living Lighthouse church following these events because she felt it "wasn't safe for me anymore." Id. at 97.

[7] After trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all charges and counts. Bosi moved for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal, arguing there was insufficient evidence presented to support his CSC II and CSC IV convictions. The trial court denied this motion, holding that a reasonable jury could have found facts sufficient to support all elements of each offense.

[8] Before sentencing, Bosi asked the trial court to invoke its power under 9 GCA § 80.22 to reduce his CSC II convictions to CSC IV convictions. The trial court agreed and did so. Bosi was thereafter sentenced to 6 months' incarceration for CSC IV, as a lesser included offense of CSC II in Charge One, Count One; 12 months' incarceration for CSC IV, as a lesser included offense of CSC II in Charge One, Count Two; no additional punishment for the CSC IV convictions in Charge Two, Counts One and Two; and 8 months' incarceration for Child Abuse in Charge Three, for a total sentence of 26 months' incarceration. However, the trial court suspended 12 months of the sentence, yielding a final sentence of 14 months' incarceration.

[9] Bosi timely appealed, creating this case. The People of Guam also timely appealed under Supreme Court Case No. CRA19-017. We consolidated the two cases upon the People's motion.

II. JURISDICTION

[10] This court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment of conviction under 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 117-240 (2022)); 7 GCA §§ 3107 and 3108(a) (2005); and 8 GCA § 130.15(a) (2005).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[11] When a defendant raises a sufficiency of the evidence argument by a motion for judgment of acquittal, we review the trial court's denial of that motion de novo. People v. Song, 2021 Guam 14 ¶ 16 (quoting People v. Aguon, 2020 Guam 24 ¶ 11). "We review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Robert, 2019 Guam 2 ¶ 8 (citing People v. Diaz, 2007 Guam 3 ¶ 10). The People "must be afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom." People v. Song, 2012 Guam 21 ¶ 28 (quoting State v. Sisk, 343 S.W.3d 60, 65 (Tenn. 2011)). "This highly deferential standard is in place to ensure that the sufficiency of the evidence review only invades the province of the jury 'to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.'" People v. Jesus, 2009 Guam 2 ¶ 60 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

[12] As a matter of first impression for this court, we apply abuse-of-discretion review to a trial court's reduction of an offense under 9 GCA § 80.22. Usually, we review the trial court's sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., People v. Manila, 2018 Guam 24 ¶ 7; People v. Manibusan, 2016 Guam 40 ¶ 12. And we have specifically applied abuse-of-discretion review to the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, 9 GCA § 80.39-a statute, like 9 GCA § 80.22, which allows a court to impose a lesser sentence than would otherwise be compelled by Guam's penal statutes. See People v. Corpuz, 2019 Guam 1 ¶¶ 42-43. Abuse-of-discretion review is also appropriate for a reduction of offense under 9 GCA § 80.22. The plain language of that statute states that a court "may enter judgment for a lesser included offense and impose sentence accordingly," when the court "is of the view that it would be unduly harsh to sentence the offender in accordance with the code." 9 GCA § 80.22 (2005). Because 9 GCA § 80.22 is phrased in the permissive ("may enter judgment"), and because the statute's applicability turns on the trial court's subjective "view" of whether a typical sentence would be "unduly harsh," id., application of the statute is an act of discretion-which means our review must be to determine whether that discretion was abused. A sentencing court abuses its discretion when its sentence "is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally based the decision." Manila, 2018 Guam 24 ¶ 7 (quoting Manibusan, 2016 Guam 40 ¶ 12).

[13] When a defendant fails to object to an indictment before trial, the defendant waives his right to do so on appeal absent a showing of good cause. 8 GCA §§ 65.15(b), 65.45 (2005); see also People v. White, 2005 Guam 20 ¶ 16 (failure to timely object without good cause "precludes appellate review").

[14] We review jury instructions for plain error when the defendant did not object at trial. People v Gargarita, 2015 Guam 28 ¶ 11 (citing People v. Felder, 2012 Guam 8 ¶ 8). "Plain error is highly prejudicial error, which this court 'will not reverse unless (1) there was an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious under current law; (3) the error affected substantial rights; and (4) reversal is necessary to prevent a miscarriage...