People of Guam v Perez [2000] GUSC 15; 2000 Guam 15 (1 May 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

NORBERT P. PEREZ, JR.
Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Supreme Court Case No. CRA98-015
Superior Court Case No. CM0216-97
CM0449-97
CM0450-97

Filed May 1, 2000

Cite as: 2000 Guam 15

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 11, 1999
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellee: Gerad Egan Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Prosecution Division 2-200E, Guam Judicial Ctr. 120 W. O'Brien Dr. Hagåtña, Guam 96910	Appearing for the Defendant-Appellant: Mark S. Smith. Esq. CHING, CIVILLE, CALVO, & TANG A Professional Corporation Suite 400, GCIC Bldg. 414 W. Soledad Ave. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Chief Justice, PETER C. SIGUENZA, Associate Justice, and RICHARD H. BENSON, Designated Justice.

CRUZ, C.J.:

[1] Appellant Norbert P. Perez, Jr. appeals his convictions for Obstructing Governmental Functions, Reckless Conduct, and Obstructing the Public Ways. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse Appellant's conviction for Obstructing Governmental Functions but affirm the jury's verdict as to the remaining charges.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] At approximately noon on three separate occasions: December 15, 1996, December 22, 1996, and February 16, 1997, Norbert P. Perez, Jr. (hereinafter, AAppellant@) blocked the outermost southbound lane of Route 4 by the Chaot Bridge in Sinajana. Appellant utilized cones to block the lane on the first two occasions. He later used cones and 55-gallon drums during the last roadblock.

[3] The record reflects that prior to each incident, the Guam Police Department (AGPD@) received notice of the time and place of the roadblock. Appellant provided such notice to GPD, via facsimile, prior to most, if not all, of the occasions when he set up the roadblocks. In addition, Appellant notified the local media of his intent to form the roadblocks. Upon receiving such notice, GPD placed police vehicles at points before and after the blockage to alert drivers. Significantly, each time Appellant blocked the road, GPD approached Appellant no less than three times, at six to eight minute intervals, in an effort to have Appellant remove both himself and the cones from the roadway and cease the traffic blockage. However, Appellant would refuse--at times stating, AI want to be arrested.@ It is undisputed that each time Appellant was arrested, he surrendered peacefully.

[4] For each of the three incidents, Appellant was charged with committing three offenses: 1) Obstructing Governmental Functions, in violation of Title 9 GCA ' 55.45 (1993); 2) Reckless Conduct, in violation of Title 9 GCA ' 19.40 (a) (1) and (b) (1994); and 3) Obstructing the Public Ways in violation of Title 9 GCA ' 61.35 (a) (1996) for a total of nine charges. At trial, Appellant was found guilty of all charges. On appeal, Appellant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support each conviction.

ANALYSIS

[5] This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Title 7 GCA '' 3107 and 3108 (1994).

A. Obstructing Governmental Functions

[6] We first address whether there was sufficient evidence to support the three convictions for Obstruction of Governmental Functions pursuant to Title 9 GCA '