People of Guam v Messier [2014] GUSC 34 (4 December 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ADAM JAMES MESSIER,
Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA14-002
Superior Court Case No.: CF0084-12

OPINION

Filed: December 4, 2014

Cite as: 2014 Guam 34

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on August 1, 2014
Dededo, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: Matthew S. Heibel, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706 Tamuning, GU 96913

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

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

TORRES, C.J.:

[1] This appeal concerns the trial court’s grant of a motion for new trial following a Criminal Sexual Conduct trial. Defendant-Appellee Adam James Messier was convicted of two counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct and one count of child abuse, and he moved for acquittal or a new trial. The trial court denied Messier’s motion for acquittal but granted his motion for a new trial. Plaintiff-Appellant People of Guam (“the People”) appeal this decision. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] Messier was indicted on one count of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a First Degree Felony), one count of Fourth Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a Misdemeanor), and one count of Child Abuse (as a Misdemeanor). A jury trial was held, and Messier was convicted of all counts against him. Messier then moved for acquittal or new trial.

[3] Messier argued that he was entitled to acquittal because “the evidence [was] insufficient to sustain a conviction of the offenses . . . charged in the indictment.” Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 98 at 2 (Mot. for Acquittal or New Trial, Apr. 5, 2013). In the alternative, Messier argued for a new trial on the grounds that “the verdicts [were] not supported by substantial evidence, that they [were] against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and that a new trial is otherwise required in the interest of justice.” Id.