2022 Guam 2
Guam2022Background
- In June 2019 Emmanuel Reselap attacked his girlfriend and later, after regaining consciousness, armed himself with a machete, seriously cutting E.R. in the abdomen.
- Reselap, with others, then swung machetes at passing, occupied vehicles, causing cuts, dents, shattered glass, and terror to occupants.
- Indictment charged multiple counts including aggravated assault (third degree), terrorizing, criminal mischief (third degree), family violence (misdemeanor), and attached §80.37 special allegations for possession/use of a deadly weapon (machete or rock).
- A jury convicted Reselap of third-degree aggravated assault with the weapon enhancement, two counts of terrorizing with enhancements, two counts of criminal mischief with enhancements, and one misdemeanor family-violence count; other charges were acquitted.
- Sentenced to incarceration, a $5,000 fine ($1,000 per special allegation) payable to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund ("Fund"), and "full restitution" to victims (with language directing reimbursement to the Fund if it had paid victims).
- Reselap appealed; the Supreme Court of Guam affirmed convictions but vacated and remanded for evidentiary hearings on the fine and restitution and struck the order directing restitution to the Fund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §80.37 weapon sentencing enhancements violate Double Jeopardy | Enhancements are valid sentencing penalties reflecting legislative intent to add punishment when weapons are used | Enhancement duplicates an underlying offense element (weapon) and thus imposes double punishment | Affirmed: enhancements do not violate Double Jeopardy; §80.37 is a permissible sentencing enhancement (courts follow Iglesias/Snaer/Moses/Afaisen reasoning) |
| Sufficiency/unanimity of proof for the special allegation pleaded "machete or rock" | Record and closing clarified only machete was used; jury unanimity satisfied | Disjunctive pleading required proving both or jury might not be unanimous as to the weapon | Held: Sufficient evidence of machete use; prosecutor repeatedly narrowed theory to machete so unanimity concern overcome; conviction stands |
| Whether the machete was a "deadly weapon" for aggravated assault and criminal mischief | Manner of use (hacking occupied vehicles; severe injury to E.R.) showed it was used in a way capable of death/serious injury | When used to damage cars, machete use on its face did not necessarily imply ability to cause death/serious injury for the mischief counts | Held: Affirmed; manner and context (swinging at occupied cars; severe wound to E.R.) support deadly-weapon finding for both assault and criminal mischief |
| Whether terrorizing requires a verbal threat (communication requirement) | Nonverbal conduct (approaching/swinging machete, striking vehicles) can communicate a threat; Robert precedent supports this | Statute requires communication of a threat—argues verbal communication required | Held: Affirmed conviction; nonverbal acts can satisfy the statute’s "communicat[ion]" of a threat (Robert followed) |
| Whether the court may impose a $5,000 fine without assessing ability to pay under 9 GCA §80.52 | §80.37 mandates minimum fines payable to the Fund; fine is proper | Trial court failed to conduct required §80.52 evidentiary inquiry into ability to pay; fine should be vacated or remitted | Held: Partially vacated; trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on ability to pay and resentence consistent with §80.52 before imposing/confirming the fine |
| Whether court may order restitution payable directly to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund | Judgment conditioned reimbursement to Fund if Fund paid victims | Fund is not a "victim" and court lacks statutory authority to order restitution to the Fund | Held: Vacated the portion ordering payment to the Fund; restitution order remanded for §80.52 hearing and must conform to statutes permitting restitution only to victims |
Key Cases Cited
- Guam v. Iglesias, 839 F.2d 628 (9th Cir.) (legislative intent supports §80.37 sentencing enhancement)
- Guam v. Snaer, 758 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.) (§80.37 imposes an additional penalty, not a separate offense)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S.) (double jeopardy allows cumulative punishments when legislature so intends)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S.) (constitutional rules on sentencing facts; defendant waived Apprendi rights here)
- State v. Higgins, 821 A.2d 964 (N.H.) (disjunctive instructions/unanimity can be cured by trial context and prosecutor clarity)
- State v. Peterson, 157 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App.) (analysis of deadly-weapon enhancement for malicious mischief; distinguishes use in unoccupied vs. occupied contexts)