People of Guam v Quenga [2015] GUSC 39 (31 December 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
Supreme Court Case No.: CRA14-006
Superior Court Case No.: CF0020-08

PEOPLE OF GUAM
Plaintiff-Appellee

v

ANTHONY T. QUENGA
Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Filed: December 31, 2015
Cite as: 2015 Guam 39

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 20, 2015
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 Prosecution Division 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706 Tamuning, GU 96913

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

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Anthony T. Quenga appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Quenga seeks reversal of his convictions based on claimed defects in the indictment and also asserts claims of insufficiency of the evidence, instructional error, and improper vouching. For the reasons herein, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] On the night of January 12, 2008, the Guam Police Department discovered that Blue House, a karaoke bar in Upper Tumon, was a front for prostitution. Investigations revealed that the owner, Song Ja Cha, had arranged with a man in Chuuk to send several young Chuukese women to Guam to work at Blue House. The women were told they would be working at a restaurant, but instead were held against their will and forced to serve as prostitutes. Cha was arrested, along with Saknin Weria and Freda Eseun, two Blue House employees who had acted as supervisors, and charged with compelling prostitution, promoting prostitution, felonious restraint, and assault.

[3] The investigation grew to include three members of the Guam Police Department, Anthony T. Quenga, David Q. Manila, and Mario L. Laxamana, who were suspected of having used their influence as law enforcement officers to keep Blue House employees from running away or seeking help and coercing them to continue to engage in prostitution. Quenga and Manila were also each accused of rape by Blue House employees. On November 16, 2012, the People filed a superseding indictment, charging them with several offenses and conspiracies. Quenga moved to dismiss the indictment on statute of limitations grounds, arguing that more than three years had passed since the time of the alleged offenses. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that each charged offense fell within the public officer exception to the general statute of limitations, rendering the indictment timely.

[4] Following a plea deal by Laxamana and additional superseding indictments, the operative indictment (i.e., the Fourth Superseding Indictment) charged Quenga with several counts of kidnapping, felonious restraint, and compelling and promoting prostitution, as well as conspiracy to commit each of these crimes. See Record on Appeal ("RA"), tab 560 (Fourth Superseding Indictment, July 31, 2013). He was also charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct ("CSC"), second degree CSC, and attempt to commit first and second degree CSC. Finally, he was charged with two misdemeanors, criminal intimidation and official misconduct.

[5] Cha's trial was severed and Weria and Eseun received plea deals, leaving Manila and Quenga to be tried together. The trial lasted over a month and featured testimony from over 20 prosecution witnesses. Following the People's case, Quenga made a motion for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied. Ultimately, the jury found him guilty of eight counts of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, eight counts of kidnapping, eight counts of conspiracy to commit felonious restraint, eight counts of felonious restraint, eight counts of conspiracy to compel prostitution, eight counts of compelling prostitution, ten counts of conspiracy to promote prostitution, nine counts of promoting prostitution, one count of first degree CSC, two counts of second degree CSC, one count of attempted first degree CSC, one count of attempted second degree CSC, one count of criminal intimidation, and one count of official misconduct. He was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of 30 years imprisonment for the first degree CSC and attempted first degree CSC convictions, to run concurrently with the sentences for the other convictions.

[6] This appeal followed.

II. JURISDICTION

[7] This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 114-61 (2015)), and 7 GCA §§ 3107 and 3108(a) (2005).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[8] The following standards of review apply to our analysis of Quenga's claims regarding the indictment. We review timely raised objections to the sufficiency of an indictment with regard to the elements of an offense for harmless error. People v Torres, 2014 Guam 8 ¶17. The application of a particular statute of limitations is a question of law reviewed de novo. People v Jung, 2001 Guam 15 ¶10. "A double jeopardy claim is a question of law reviewed de novo." People v San Nicolas, 2001 Guam 4 ¶ 8. "Whether an indictment is duplicitous is a question of law reviewed de novo." People v Muna, No. CR94-00075A, 1996 WL 104532, at *1 (D. Guam App. Di v Mar. 6, 1996), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 110 F.3d 69 (9th Cir. 1997).

[9] The following standard of review applies to Quenga's sufficiency of the evidence claims:
When a defendant appeals a motion for judgment of acquittal based on an insufficiency of the evidence, we review the trial court's denial of the motion de novo