People of Guam v Camacho [2016] GUSC 37 (29 December 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VINCENT PETER ROSARIO CAMACHO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA15-013
Superior Court Case No.: CF0022-09

OPINION

Filed: December 29, 2016

Cite as: 2016 Guam 37

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 26, 2015
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Terence E. Timblin, Esq. Yanza, Flynn, Timblin, LLP One Agana Bay 446 E. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 201 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. Tamuning, GU 96913

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

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] A jury found Defendant-Appellant Vincent Peter Rosario Camacho guilty of two counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (“CSC”), four counts of Second Degree CSC, one count of Terrorizing, and two counts of Child Abuse. The court granted Camacho’s Motion for Acquittal with respect to one of the First Degree CSC charges, but denied it as to the remaining charges. The court then sentenced Camacho to 40 years of incarceration for the remaining First Degree CSC charge and three counts of Second Degree CSC. All other convictions were given sentences to run concurrently with the 40-year term.
[2] On appeal, Camacho argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for First Degree CSC, that hearsay testimony was erroneously admitted over objection, and that the court abused its discretion by failing to grant him a new trial based on cumulative error. For the reasons herein, we affirm Camacho’s convictions.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] Camacho was charged by superseding indictment for several instances of CSC and related crimes for the sexual assault of three minor victims. At the close of the People’s case-in-chief, Camacho faced two charges of First Degree CSC; three charges of Second Degree CSC, one of which included two counts; two charges of Child Abuse; and one charge of Terrorizing.^[1]
[4] In late 2008, Donna Cruz moved her family—including her eight-year-old daughter K.M.Q. and four-year-old daughter K.Q.Q.—to live with her aunt Dorothy Cruz and Dorothy’s husband, Camacho. Not long after, during a family Christmas gathering, K.Q.Q. approached Dorothy’s sister, Lourdes Saloma, and told her that “[Camacho] touched their bebe[,] which [means] . . . vagina in Chamorro.” Transcript (“Tr.”) at 76-77 (Jury Trial, Apr. 24, 2014). At trial, Lourdes explained that when K.M.Q. overheard K.Q.Q.’s disclosure, she “got scared” and told K.Q.Q. in front of Lourdes that she “w[asn’t] supposed to tell anybody.” Id. at 77-78, 90. K.M.Q. thereafter confirmed to Lourdes that it was true and that the same thing also happened to her. These hearsay statements were admitted over objection by defense counsel under the residual hearsay exception of Guam Rule of Evidence (“GRE”) 807.
[5] A few days after the Christmas party, several members of the family held a meeting to discuss what K.M.Q. and K.Q.Q. had told Lourdes. During this meeting, another family member, fifteen-year-old K.A.F., began to cry and disclosed that Camacho had also sexually assaulted her.
[6] K.A.F. testified in court that when she was five, she and her twin sister spent the night at Dorothy and Camacho’s residence, and before she went to bed, while she was watching television in only her panties, Camacho rubbed his penis on her buttocks. She said this happened while she was lying on her stomach on the floor behind her twin sister. Lourdes claimed that K.A.F. told her that her twin sister was also sexually assaulted, but her twin sister told Lourdes she did not remember anything like that ever happening to either of them. The twin sister also told an investigating officer that she did not remember ever witnessing her sister, K.A.F., being molested, although she did remember spending that night at her aunt’s house and watching television.
[7] K.A.F. told the jury that she did not tell anyone until the family meeting because in her younger years she did not understand that what had occurred was wrong. Even after realizing the gravity of what had happened, she was afraid of what Camacho would do if she told someone and feared that Dorothy would not like her anymore.
[8] After the family meeting, on January 13, 2009, Donna took her daughters, K.M.Q. and K.Q.Q., to the police. About a week later, she took her daughters to Healing Hearts Crisis Center—a rape crisis center—where social worker Leticia Piper conducted an intake interview. Piper’s in-court testimony about what K.M.Q. told her during her intake interview and a redacted version of her report were admitted over a hearsay objection as admissible under GRE 803(4)—an exception for hearsay statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. Piper told the court that her role was to prepare a report that a nurse was to use later for a physical examination and to decide whether to refer the girls for other medical treatment.
[9] During this intake interview, K.M.Q. told Piper how Camacho had touched her, but Piper was unable to determine whether the touching was under or over K.M.Q.’s clothes. K.M.Q. also told Piper that there had been blood on her panty and that she had felt pain in her vagina. She told Piper that her mother had thrown the panty away. Donna later testified she did not recall ever seeing a bloody panty in the relevant timeframe and denied ever throwing one away.
[10] During K.Q.Q.’s intake, she was unable to retain her focus after she identified certain body parts to Piper, and she “did not make any disclosure” or talk about the incident at all. Tr. at 48-49 (Jury Trial, Apr. 25, 2014).
[11]