People of Guam v Root [1999] GUSC 22; 1999 Guam 25 (20 October 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM
Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

ARTHUR SCOTT ROOT
Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Supreme Court Case No. CRA98-018
Superior Court Case No. CFO 153-98

Filed: October 20, 1999

Cite as: 1999 Guam 25

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam.
Argued and submitted on August 17, 1999
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for the Defendant-Appellant: Matthew T. Gregory, Esq. Mair, Mair, Spade, & Thompson Suite 807, GCIC Bldg. 414 W. Soledad Ave. P.O. Box BF Hagåtña, GU 96910	Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellee: Lisa DiMaria Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Prosecution Division 2-200E Judicial Ctr. Bldg. 120 W. O=Brien Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Chief Justice, PETER C. SIGUENZA, Associate Justice and JOSE LEON GUERRERO Associate Justice Pro Tempore.

CRUZ, C.J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Arthur Scott Root (hereinafter, ARoot@) appeals the trial court=s denial of his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal notwithstanding the Verdict and the judgment entered against him after trial. Root argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict as to the charge of Terrorizing. Root also claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on two separate grounds.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] On February 27, 1998, Root=s father, Rolland Knut Root (hereinafter ARolland@), heard what he considered to be a gunshot originating in his home. Rolland then saw Root with a gun. Thereafter, Rolland and Root engaged in a verbal altercation during which Root allegedly uttered a threat to Rolland and pointed the gun at him. Shortly thereafter, Rolland left the residence in order to file a formal complaint at the Central Precinct in Agana. Upon returning to his residence, Rolland then discovered a hole in his refrigerator and a bullet inside the appliance. Subsequently, he summoned the police and an officer responded and took the bullet into custody.

[3] On March 12, 1998, Root was indicted and charged with Terrorizing, as a Third Degree Felony, with a Special Allegation of Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, and with Possession of a Firearm Without a Firearm=s Identification Card, also as a Third Degree Felony. At the close of the People=s case, Root moved for a Judgment of Acquittal on all charges. The court reserved its ruling on the Terrorizing charge and denied the motion as to the other charges. The jury subsequently returned a guilty verdict on the Terrorizing charge and acquitted him of the remaining charges. Root then renewed his motion for a Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict on the Terrorizing charge. The trial court=s denial of this motion inter alia resulted in this appeal.

ANALYSIS

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence.

[4] This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA sections 3107 and 3108 (1994). The trial court's ruling on the motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo. People v. Cruz, 1998 Guam 18, & 8. In conducting this review, courts apply the same test as that used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. at & 9. Accordingly, the evidence presented against Root shall be reviewed in a light most favorable to the People to determine whether, "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.

[5] This review does not require the court to "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . . . ." People v. Quinata, 1999 Guam 6, & 9 (citations omitted). Quite the contrary, in accordance with the standard set forth in Jackson, this Court=s review shall give Afull play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.@ Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979)).

[6] In the instant case, Root was charged and convicted of Terrorizing as a Third Degree Felony pursuant to 9 GCA section 19.60 (a) and (b) (1994). This statute provides,

Terrorizing; Defined & Punished.

(a) A person is guilty of terrorizing if he communicates to any person a threat to commit or to cause to be committed a crime of violence dangerous to human life, against the person to whom the communication is made or another, and the natural and probable consequence of such a threat, is to place the person to whom the threat is communicated or the person threatened in reasonable fear that crime will be committed.

(b) Terrorizing is a felony of the third degree.

Id.

[7] Although the Guam Legislature used the term Aterrorizing,@ in drafting 9 GCA section 19.60 (a) and (b), other jurisdictions use the term Aterroristic threat@ in statutes that seek to prohibit the same conduct. In those jurisdictions, courts have expressly stated that it is not an essential element of the offense of making a terroristic threat that the victim actually be placed in fear of imminent harm. See generally Smith v. State, 757 S.W.2d 554 (1988). In Smith, the defendant was tried and convicted of seven counts of terroristic threats. Id. at 555. The charges stemmed from an incident whereby the defendant waved a gun around and threatened to kill everyone in the building. Id. Despite the fact that no evidence was presented to prove that all seven people who were in the building were terrorized, the court upheld the conviction. Id. at 556. The court held that, A