People of Guam v Torres [2014] GUSC 8; 2014 Guam 08 (24 April 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JUAN JOSE TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No. CRA13-012
Superior Court Case No. CF0253-12

OPINION

April 24, 2014

Cite as: 2014 Guam 8

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 24, 2013
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: F. Randall Cunliffe, Esq. Cunliffe & Cook 210 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 200 Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.[1]

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Juan Jose Torres appeals from a final judgment convicting him of one count of Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and two counts of Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct. Torres raises seven issues on appeal, asserting that his indictment was defective; that the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment; that the government presented insufficient evidence of assault; that his statutory speedy trial right was violated; that the court admitted improper character evidence; that the court erroneously allowed the People to amend the indictment; and that the prosecution committed misconduct.

[2] We reverse the trial court's judgment in part, and affirm in part. We hold that the indictment was insufficient with respect to the Second Charge, Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct, and reverse the trial court's judgment on those counts. Because we vacate Torres's conviction for Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct, we need not address Torres's arguments regarding constructive amendment of the indictment or sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the Second Charge.

[3] We affirm the trial court's judgment on all other issues, and uphold Torres's conviction for Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND