Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Guam |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT LEE PATTERSON III,
Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court Case No.: CRA18-008
Superior Court Case No.:
CF0109-17
OPINION
Filed: June 14, 2019
Cite as: 2019 Guam 7
Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted
on February 22, 2019
Hagåtña, Guam
Appearing for Defendant-Appellant:
Terry E. Timblin, Esq. Law Office of Terry E. Timblin, P.C. One Agana Bay 446 E. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 201B Hagåtña, GU 96910 |
Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:
Jeremy S. Kemper, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Prosecution Division 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 801 Tamuning, GU 96913 |
BEFORE: KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice.
CARBULLIDO, J.:
[1] Defendant Robert Lee Patterson III appeals a judgment of conviction the Superior Court entered for three counts of Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct—one count for sexual penetration; one count for cunnilingus; and one count for fellatio. Patterson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence based on an alleged inconsistency between the amount of time the victim testified the assault lasted and the time between phone calls in Patterson’s cell phone records.[1] We affirm Patterson’s convictions.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[2] Patterson had been in a long-term romantic relationship with D.B.
From a previous relationship, D.B had three children including
daughter J.R.B.
On February 24, 2017, Patterson, D.B., and D.B.’s children resided at the
same house in Dededo.
[3] J.R.B. testified that on the morning of
February 24, 2017, she woke up late and missed the school bus. Her mother told
her to stay
home and clean the house. Id. At approximately 8:05 a.m.,
Patterson spoke to J.R.B. on the phone and asked her to cook breakfast for him;
he arrived home approximately
twenty minutes later. Patterson ate breakfast
with D.B’s son, and then went for a cigarette. Before going outside to
smoke,
Patterson asked J.R.B., by mouthing the words to her, to go to his room
and look for his boots. After J.R.B. returned to the kitchen,
Patterson came
back inside the house and instructed J.R.B. to go back to his room again. Once
in the room, Patterson locked the
door, which also had a sheet covering it.
Patterson told J.R.B. to take off her boxers and underwear and put on a bathing
suit bottom.
Patterson then forced J.R.B. to hold his penis. He then made her
lie on the bed and spread her legs, where he performed cunnilingus
and inserted
his penis into her vagina. Patterson then inserted his penis into
J.R.B.’s mouth and ejaculated. J.R.B. testified
that it felt like this
lasted 30-40 minutes. Afterwards, Patterson gave J.R.B. a towel and wiped her
face. He made her drink some
tea, which was in a refrigerator in the room.
J.R.B. also testified that Patterson did not make or receive any calls during
the
assault, and that she called her sister at approximately 10:00 a.m. to tell
her what happened. Subsequently, J.R.B. received a call
from her mother, D.B.
[4] According to GTA phone records introduced at trial, several phone
calls and text messages were made that morning. At 8:03 a.m.,
Patterson
received a one-minute phone call from the house. At 8:17 a.m., he received a
seven-minute phone call from the house.
At 9:02 a.m., Patterson sent D.B.
through WhatsApp a video of a gift he had given her. At 9:05 a.m., Patterson
placed a one-minute
call to the house, and at 9:24 a.m., Patterson placed a
two-minute call to the house. At 10:35 a.m., Patterson received a two-minute
call from an unknown number. At 10:37 a.m., Patterson placed a five-minute call
to the house. At 10:42 a.m., Patterson received
a one-minute phone call from
D.B. At 10:46 and 10:48 a.m., D.B. received two consecutive phone calls from
the house. After a series
of short phone calls, Patterson placed a
twenty-minute call to D.B. at 11:01 a.m.
[5] Based on a review of
these records, the substantial periods of time without a phone call being placed
are 8:04 a.m. to 8:17 a.m.
(13 minutes); 8:24 a.m. to 9:05 a.m. (41 minutes);
and 9:26 a.m. to 10:35 a.m. (69 minutes). Patterson asserts that the evidence
shows he was away from the house as of 9:05 a.m. since he placed a phone call to
the house.
[6] J.R.B. filed a police report two days later, and
Patterson was later indicted on three counts of Third Degree Criminal Sexual
Conduct
as a Second Degree Felony. After the trial court denied
Patterson’s motion for judgment of acquittal, a jury convicted him
of all
three counts. Judgment was entered, and Patterson timely appealed.
II. JURISDICTION
[7] This court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments of conviction. 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 116-20 (2019)); 7 GCA §§ 3107, 3108(a) (2005); 8 GCA § 130.15(a) (2005).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[8] Insufficient evidence claims are matters of law, which we review de novo. People v. Camacho, 2015 Guam 37 ¶ 9. In reviewing sufficiency, we ask “whether the evidence in the record could reasonably support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting People v. Root, 2005 Guam 16 ¶ 33). The facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the government. People v. Song, 2012 Guam 21 ¶ 26.
IV. ANALYSIS
[9] “In Guam, the testimony of a sexual assault victim does not
need to be corroborated, and a victim’s testimony alone can
support a
criminal sexual conduct conviction.” People v. Perez, 2015 Guam 10
¶ 36; see also People v. Campbell, 2006 Guam 14 ¶ 40. At
trial, J.R.B. testified regarding the facts and circumstances supporting each
criminal sexual conduct count. The
record contains sufficient evidence to
support Patterson’s convictions.
[10] However, Patterson raises
an additional question—one not previously answered by this court. He asks
whether phone logs rise
to the level of reliable technological evidence upon
which a court can rely in overturning an otherwise valid conviction supported
by
testimony.
[11] Technology and new evidence can provide a valid basis
for raising an actual innocence claim. See, e.g., People v. Shum,
797 N.E.2d 609, 620 (Ill. 2003); Anderson v. State, 831 A.2d 858, 865-67
(Del. 2003). Actual innocence claims are gateway claims that allow a convicted
criminal defendant a fresh look at a case.
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569
U.S. 383, 386 (2013). To make a tenable claim of actual innocence, in
post-conviction review, a defendant must show that because of new
evidence, “no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Schlup v.
Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 (1995)).
“‘[A]ctual innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere
legal insufficiency.” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623
(1998). Under this precedent, courts have analyzed the reliability of evidence,
such as newly discovered DNA or undisclosed
records, to provide
post-conviction relief. See McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at 387,
399.
[12] Here, however, there is no claim of newly discovered
evidence or significant advances in technology. Patterson merely makes a claim
of competing evidence and theories. The jury resolves these questions and
conflicts. People v. Jesus, 2009 Guam 2 ¶¶ 60-61. Records of
calls to and from a particular phone are not the type of technological evidence
that generally affords
a defendant a “fresh look.” These records
are evidence for the jury to consider.
[13] Patterson’s jury
heard and considered the evidence surrounding the phone records. Therefore,
Patterson’s claim is ultimately
one of mere sufficiency, not actual
innocence, which requires us to defer to the jury. Id. As an
evidentiary matter, Patterson contends that phone calls from his cell phone to
the house indicate that he was away from the
residence when the call was made.
However, mere proof of a call from a cell phone to a residence does not
categorically prove a
person’s absence from the residence. The location
of a defendant at the time of a phone call is a matter for the jury, and
the
phone records do not prove Patterson’s location.
[14] Even
delving into Patterson’s phone records, the evidence reasonably supports
the jury’s verdict. J.R.B. testified that
the entire assault lasted about
30-40 minutes. Based on the testimony, we assume that Patterson’s initial
phone call to the
house occurred away from the residence shortly after 8:00 a.m.
At some point thereafter, he returned to the house. Under the defense’s
timeline, it is plausible that Patterson’s initial phone call to the house
occurred at 8:03 a.m. Because J.R.B. testified
that Patterson did not make or
receive any phone calls during the assault, the records reveal three
uninterrupted periods of time
between calls—8:04 a.m. to 8:17 a.m. (13
minutes); 8:24 a.m. to 9:05 a.m. (41 minutes); 9:26 a.m. to 10:35 a.m. (69
minutes).
Even if Patterson arrived home about twenty minutes after the first
phone call, the two subsequent periods of time are sufficient
for a jury to base
a finding of guilt. Even if Patterson’s phone call to the house at 9:05
a.m. placed him away from the residence,
the 41-minute window from 8:24 a.m. to
9:05 a.m., acknowledged by Patterson, is sufficient time in which a jury could
conclude a
sexual assault occurred. Therefore, even under Patterson’s
theory, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s
conviction.
V. CONCLUSION
[15] We AFFIRM Patterson’s Judgment of Conviction.
/s/ /s/
F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
ROBERT J. TORRES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
/s/
KATHERINE A. MARAMAN
Chief Justice
[1] Patterson also challenged his convictions as violating prohibitions against double jeopardy. However, he withdrew this point in his Reply Brief.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/gu/cases/GUSC/2019/7.html