People v. Mendiola, (2023)

1

2023 Guam 12

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN FAISAO MENDIOLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. CRA22-002

Supreme Court of Guam

November 28, 2023

Argued and submitted on April 11, 2023 Tamuning, Guam

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Case No. CF0245-20

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant:

Joseph C. Razzano, Esq. (briefed) Joshua D. Walsh, Esq. (briefed and argued) Razzano Walsh & Torres, P.C.

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:

Marianne Woloschuk, Esq. Assistant Attorney General BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO Associate Justice; and KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

OPINION

TORRES, C.J.

[1] Defendant-Appellant Juan Faisao Mendiola appeals his conviction of Manslaughter (as a First Degree Felony), as a lesser-included offense to Charge One: Murder (as a First Degree Felony), with a Special Allegation of Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. On appeal, Mendiola argues: (1) the COVID-19 protocols in the Superior Court deprived him of his right to a public trial; (2) Plaintiff-Appellee People of Guam ("People") violated his due process rights by presenting evidence that impermissibly injected Guam's Castle Doctrine into the proceedings; and (3) the People's use of a de facto Castle Doctrine presumption meant Mendiola's claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject Mendiola's arguments and affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] Juan Faisao Mendiola was indicted on charges of Murder (as a First Degree Felony), including a Special Allegation of Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, and of Aggravated Assault (as a Second Degree Felony) with a Special Allegation of Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony. The charges stemmed from a shooting at an apartment in Mongmong on a morning in May 2020.

[3] Before the shooting, Mendiola and Claire Siguenza spent the early hours of the morning, from after midnight until around 5:00 a.m., "hanging out" and talking at a neighbor's apartment. Transcript ("Tr.") at 37-39 (Jury Trial, Aug. 27, 2021). Eventually Siguenza went to bed, and she testified to telling Mendiola she was too tired to go fishing with him later that morning. Upon returning to her second-floor apartment, Siguenza found Peter John Tadeo Rios, Jr., inside, waiting for a friend to pick him up. Before heading to bed, Siguenza told Rios "to not open up the door because [she] wanted to sleep" and to "lock the door" before leaving. Id. at 38.

[4] Mendiola expressed that in the early morning he returned to Siguenza's apartment with fishing equipment. He heard Rios, inside the apartment, acknowledge his presence. But Rios did not call for Siguenza or allow Mendiola into the apartment. Mendiola told police that upon recognizing Rios behind the door, he returned to his vehicle and retrieved a revolver because Rios had a reputation for being a "violent person" and Mendiola was unsure what was happening inside. Id. at 103-05. Returning to the apartment with the handgun, Mendiola again tried to enter.

[5] Soon after Mendiola retrieved the firearm, Rae Ann Quidachay, a friend of Siguenza, Mendiola, and Rios, arrived at the apartment complex. Mendiola continued to knock and asked for Siguenza several times before Quidachay came up the stairs. When she arrived at the apartment, Rios confirmed Quidachay's identity and then opened the door to let her in. When the door opened, Mendiola tried to enter behind Quidachay; however, Rios refused to let him inside.

[6] Mendiola informed Rios that "he didn't want any trouble" and was only there to take Siguenza fishing. Id. at 107-08, 110. With the door open, Mendiola stepped inside far enough to set a fishing pole against the wall. When Mendiola entered and called out for Siguenza, Rios grabbed a knife and "presented it." Id. at 108. When Rios produced a knife, Mendiola drew the firearm. He told police that when Rios "lung[ed] at him," he "pointed the weapon at [Rios's] chest and fired a single shot." Id. at 110. Mendiola's shot hit Rios in the chest, and Rios "stumbled back against the coffee table and fell to his knees." Id. at 110-11. Mendiola then maneuvered around the coffee table to get to Siguenza's bedroom. Rios swung the knife again, and after a failed attempt to take the knife away, Mendiola fired a second shot.

[7] The Guam Police Department ("GPD") and Guam Fire Department ("GFD") responded to Siguenza's apartment, finding Rios on the floor unresponsive, "pulseless" and "breathless." Id. at 79-80, 85. Given Rios's condition, GFD did not attempt to resuscitate but relinquished the scene to GPD for investigation.

[8] Mendiola was arrested following the incident. Upon receipt and waiver of his Miranda rights, Mendiola responded to questions and gave the police a written statement. He also agreed to participate in a video reenactment.

[9] Mendiola's trial was set for August 2021. In compliance with Judiciary of Guam COVID-19 protocols, voir dire was conducted in the "Route 4" ancillary courtroom. Attendance was limited, and no video or audio access for the public was provided.

[10] On the day jury selection began, Mendiola filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the People from offering a Castle Doctrine jury instruction and building a case on the presumption that Rios was justified in using the knife against Mendiola. The Superior Court granted the motion, concluding, "The People's proposed Castle Doctrine jury instruction cannot be offered, and the People cannot use the Castle Doctrine as a shortcut to prove Defendant did not act in self-defense." Record on Appeal ("RA"), tab 137 at 3 (Dec. &Order, Sept. 23, 2021); Tr. at 65 (Jury Trial, Aug. 30, 2021).

[11] Mendiola's trial was held in the Justice Monessa G. Lujan Appellate Courtroom, located on the third floor of the Guam Judicial Center. Typically reserved for proceedings before this court, the courtroom was modified so that the gallery was used for a socially-distanced jury box. Remote video-streaming areas were set up in both the first-floor atrium of the Judiciary and in Presiding Judge Lamorena, III's courtroom. All audio and visuals were broadcast live.

[12] When proceedings began, Mendiola raised concerns about the way the livestream was being carried out. The Superior Court invited Mendiola to file a written motion and called for a recess to ensure the livestream was functioning properly. Mendiola subsequently moved for a new trial, arguing the Superior Court's COVID-19 protocols caused the jury selection and trial to proceed without the public, in violation of the United States Constitution, the Organic Act of Guam, and Guam law. RA, tab 114 (Mot. New Trial, Aug. 30, 2021)^1] In support of this motion, Mendiola filed the declaration of his daughter Mercedes Rosario ("Rosario's Declaration"), which alleged the public could not hear opening statements or the presentation of evidence, the transmission was "muffled," and the screen size for the video stream was inadequate. RA, tab 113 at 1-2 (Decl. Mercedes Rosario, Aug. 30, 2021). Rosario's Declaration also included the assertion that Mendiola's counsel informed her, five days before voir dire, that the public could not attend jury selection because of COVID regulations.

[13] The People opposed this motion, relying on the public health and safety implications of COVID-19 and noting the "impossible position" the Superior Court was in. RA, tab 116 at 2 (People's Opp'n, Aug. 31, 2021). After a hearing on the motion, the Superior Court denied Mendiola's request for a new trial. RA, tab 139 at 1-2 (Dec. &Order, Sept. 28, 2021). It noted the court "addressed these issues by temporarily pausing the trial to make several changes to the broadcast process. The broadcast issues were fully resolved once the trial resumed, and no additional complaints were made to the Court once these changes were made." Id. at 4.

[14] Mendiola was found guilty of Manslaughter (as a First Degree Felony), as a lesser included offense to Murder, along with a sentencing enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to fifteen years of incarceration for Manslaughter and ten years for the Special Allegation, with credit for time served, the sentences ordered to run consecutively. Mendiola timely appealed.

II. JURISDICTION

[15] This court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a final judgment of the Superior Court. 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw current through Pub. L. 118-21 (2023)); 7 GCA §§ 3107(b), 3108(a) (2005); 8 GCA §§ 130.10, 130.15(a) (2005).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[16] "When a defendant forfeits his claim by failing to make a timely objection, we must review that claim for plain error." People v. Camacho, 2016 Guam 13 ¶ 12 (quoting United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965 970 (9th Cir. 2012)); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 73133 (1993); United States v. Santos, 501 Fed.Appx. 630, 632 (9th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (applying plain error review to a public trial claim defendant failed to raise during voir dire). "Although we have 'discretion to review plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights, even when not raised at trial,' we exercise this discretion 'sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.'" People v. Bosi, 2022 Guam 15 ¶ 46 (quoting People v. Martin, 2018 Guam 7 ¶ 11). "We 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 of justice or to maintain the integrity of the judicial process." People v. Quitugua, 2009 Guam 10 ¶ 11; see also Olano, 507 U.S....