People of Guam v Taitano [2015] GUSC 33 (3 November 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LUKE ALLEN PANGELINAN TAITANO,
Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA14-017
Superior Court Case No.: CF0211-12

OPINION

Filed: November 13, 2015

Cite as: 2015 Guam 33

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 12, 2015
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Leevin T. Camacho, Esq. Law Office of Leevin T. Camacho 194 Hernan Cortez Ave., Ste. 216 Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

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

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] This case comes before the court following the criminal conviction of Defendant-Appellant Luke Allen Pangelinan Taitano after a jury trial. The dispute centers on whether Plaintiff-Appellee People of Guam (“the People”) presented sufficient evidence to establish that Taitano assaulted the victim during the timeframe alleged, whether a material variance in proof affected Taitano’s substantial rights, and whether the trial court improperly admitted testimony about separate incidents of sexual contact. Taitano claims that the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for a New Trial. Specifically, Taitano asserts that the trial court should have found insufficient evidence supporting his conviction based on the material variance between details of the crime for which he was indicted and those presented at trial. He further suggests that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting testimony of other alleged incidents of sexual assault against the victim and for not issuing a limiting instruction about this testimony to the jury.

[2] We reverse Taitano’s conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for a new trial on the basis that a material variance between the allegations and proof offered at trial violated his constitutional rights to notice and to protection from double jeopardy.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3]