People of Guam v Orallo [2004] GUSC 6; 2004 Guam 05 (7 May 2004)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JESSE PAMA ORALLO,
Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

Supreme Court Case No. CRA02-004
Superior Court Case No. CF0239-99

Filed: May 7, 2004

Cite as: 2004 Guam 5

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on June 24, 2003
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: J. Basil O`Mallan, III Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 2-200E Guam Judicial Ctr. 120 W. O=Brien Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Howard Trapp, Esq. Howard Trapp Inc. 200 Saylor Bldg. 139 Chalan Santo Papa Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore

TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:

[1] The People of Guam (APeople@) appeal from the trial court=s decision to grant Defendant-Appellant Jesse Pama Orallo=s (AOrallo@) motion for a new trial. The trial court held that the People were required by the discovery statutes to produce a written report prepared by its investigator in an entirely unrelated case, which was used to rebut the credibility of a witness for the defense. We disagree. The report, which was prepared for an entirely different investigation not involving Orallo, is not relevant under the discovery statutes. The trial court=s order granting a new trial is reversed.

I.

[2] On the night of February 7, 1999, Orallo allegedly went to the home of his sister, Remedios Orallo (ARemedios@), and woke a female minor to let him in. The minor was the daughter of Remedios=s boyfriend, Francis San Nicolas (ASan Nicolas@). Orallo then allegedly sexually assaulted the minor. On April 4, 1999, the alleged victim=s mother filed a complaint against Orallo with the Guam Police Department (AOrallo Complaint@). On April 5, 1999, Orallo was indicted on: (1) three counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct; (2) three counts of second degree criminal sexual conduct; (3) one count of third degree sexual criminal conduct and; (4) one count of fourth degree sexual criminal conduct.

[3] On April 5, 1999, in an entirely separate matter, Remedios filed a child abuse complaint against San Nicolas, alleging that he assaulted her daughters and smoked ice in their presence (ASan Nicolas Complaint@). Attorney General Investigator Anthony W. Blas (ABlas@), who had previously investigated the Orallo Complaint, investigated the San Nicolas Complaint. During Blas= investigation of the San Nicolas Complaint, Remedios admitted to Blas that she told her daughters to lie. Blas transcribed the content of that conversation in an investigatory report (ABlas= Written Statement@).

[4] Prior to Orallo=s trial, the court ordered mutual discovery pursuant to 8 GCA '' 70.10, 70.25(b), and 70.25(c) on March 8, 2001. On April 16, 2001, Orallo filed his witness list. The People provided Orallo with a witness list on April 19, 2001. Blas was on the People=s witness list. The People did not provide Orallo with Blas= Written Statement. The record does not show that Orallo made any specific motion or request for Blas= Written Statement.

[5] Orallo=s trial began on April 24, 2001. At trial, Orallo called Remedios to testify on the charges brought against him. Remedios testified that the victim admitted to her that she had not been sexually assaulted by Orallo. The People called Blas to testify on his investigation of the San Nicolas Complaint in order to impeach Remedios= testimony. The People showed Blas= Written Statement to defense counsel, who complained to the trial judge and suggested that the question be limited to whether the investigator had knowledge that Remedios had asked her daughters to lie in the San Nicolas Complaint. Blas then testified to that effect. Orallo was found guilty on April 30, 2001.

[6] Orallo obtained new counsel on May 4, 2001. Orallo=s new counsel filed a post-trial motion seeking dismissal or a new trial arguing that the People failed to comply with the trial court=s discovery order by not providing Blas= Written Statement. The trial court granted the motion on the grounds that the People violated its discovery order.

II.

[7] This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Title 7 GCA ' 3107(b). The People appeal from the trial court=s grant of a motion for a new trial, a permissible ground for an appeal by the People in a criminal case. See Title 8 GCA ' 130.20(a)(1) (1993).

III.

[8] The People appeal the trial court=s order granting a motion for a new trial based on the People=s failure to comply with the trial court=s discovery order. The order required the People to provide discovery pursuant to Title 8 GCA ' 70.10. The issue we face is whether section 70.10 required the People to provide an investigator=s written statement, which although unrelated to the investigation of the case at bar, was used to impeach a defense witness. Whether section 70.10 requires such a disclosure is an issue of statutory interpretation and therefore a question of law we review de novo. See Ada v. Guam Tel. Auth., 1999 Guam 10, & 10.

[9] We begin with the premise that A[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case.@ Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct. 837, 846 (1977), and note that A=the right to pre-trial discovery is strictly limited to that which is permitted by statute or court rule mandated by constitutional guarantees.=@ Cole v. State, 835 A.2d 600, 608 (Md. 2003) (quoting Tharp v. State, 763 A.2d 151, 171 (Md. 2000)).

[10] The Guam statute that controls the discovery of the People=s witnesses and evidence, Title 8 GCA ' 70.10, provides in relevant part:

(a) Except as otherwise provided . . . at any time after the first appearance upon noticed motion by the defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defendant's attorney or permit the defendant's attorney to inspect and copy the following material and information within his possession or control, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the prosecuting attorney:

(1) the name and address of any person whom the prosecuting attorney intends to call as a witness at the trial, together with his relevant written or recorded statement;

. . . .

(7) any material or information which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to the offense charged or would tend to reduce his punishment therefor.

(b) The prosecuting attorney's obligations under this Section extend to any material information in the possession or control of members of his staff and any other persons who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case and who either regularly report or with reference to this case have reported to his office.

Title 8 GCA ' 70.10 (1993).[1] The trial court found that section 70.10 required the disclosure of the impeachment evidence.

A. Discovery Under Section 70.10(a)(7)

[11] The People argue that Blas= written statement is not exculpatory, does not negate the guilt of the defendant or tend to reduce his punishment. We agree. The written report documented an interview by Investigator Blas of Remedios and her admission that she lied in a separate case. The evidence impeaches only Remedios= credibility, who was called to testify in Orallo=s defense. Thus, Blas= written statement acts against Orallo=s interests and is not exculpatory.

[12] The disclosure of exculpatory evidence is required by section 70.10(a)(7) which codifies and expands upon the constitutional due process requirement, set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), that the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the defendant which is material to guilt or punishment. See