People of Guam v Lujan [1998] GUSC 27; 1998 Guam 28 (15 December 1998)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Supreme Court Case No. CRA96-006

) Superior Court Case No. CF0420-96

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

vs. ) OPINION

)

FELIX ESPINOSA LUJAN, et al., )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

____________________________________)

Filed: December 15, 1998

Cite as: 1998 Guam 28

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and Submitted on 19 August 1997
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: John F. Tarantino Special Assistant Attorney General 250 Route 4, Chalan Pago, Guam 96924 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee Eugenio A. Benavente: Richard Parker Arens, Esq. Cunliffe & Cook 210 Archbishop Flores Street, Suite 200 Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee David J. Farnum: D. Paul Vernier, Jr., Esq. Vernier Law Office Suite 804, GCIC Building 414 West Soledad Avenue Hagåtña, Guam 96910 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee Domingo S. Fernandez: Raymond T. Johnson II, Esq. 288 South Marine Drive, Suite 202 Tamuning, Guam 96911

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS and EDUARDO A. CALVO, Associate Justices.

SIGUENZA, C.J.:

[1] This appeal presents separate issues regarding both the disqualification of prosecutors and the standards governing dismissal of an indictment. After reviewing the issue of disqualification, the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to review this submission. However, our lack of jurisdiction as to the first issue does not preclude us from reviewing the dismissal of the indictment. We conclude that the dismissal was in error; accordingly, the court reverses the decision of the trial court and orders the indictment=s reinstatement.

BACKGROUND

[2] This matter is an appeal taken by the People following the court=s disqualification of the Attorney General=s Office as the prosecuting authority and the subsequent dismissal, with prejudice, of the indictment. The indictment alleged acts of bribery, unlawful influence, record tampering, hindering apprehension, official misconduct and conspiracy by employees of the Department of Public Health and Social Services and charges that generally involved the improper certification and/or inspection of establishments under that agency=s jurisdiction.

[3] The indictment in this matter was filed 16 July 1996. At some point thereafter, counsel for Defendant Benavente apparently learned the Prosecution Division=s Chief Investigator, who had previously been employed at the Department of Public Health, may have been implicated in the pattern of misconduct alleged in the indictment but not charged. As a result, he filed a motion on 20 September 1996 to recuse the Attorney General=s Office from prosecuting the matter. He claimed the Chief Investigator=s involvement in the offenses, in conjunction with the investigation thereof, established a conflict of interest that tainted the entire office. Subsequently, the motion to disqualify was heard by the trial judge on 24 September 1996.

[4]