Opinion ID: 6350619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did intentionally;

Text: People v. Pinaula, 2022 Guam 3, Opinion Page 26 of 37 beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Damian, 2016 Guam 8 ¶ 14 (citing People v. Perry, 2009 Guam 4 ¶ 50). [62] A sufficiency of the evidence analysis evaluates whether there is enough direct or circumstantial evidence presented so reasonable inferences may be drawn supporting each element of the crime charged. Jesus, 2009 Guam 2 ¶ 62. Entirely circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. People v. Quintanilla, 2020 Guam 8 ¶ 11; People v. Martin, 2018 Guam 7 ¶ 26. However, “‘juries must not be allowed to convict on mere suspicion and innuendo,’” and “[a] trial court should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal when the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty.” Quintanilla, 2020 Guam 8 ¶ 11 (first quoting Anastacio, 2010 Guam 18 ¶ 18; and then quoting Song, 2012 Guam 21 ¶ 29). “A defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal when the People fail to produce evidence of the offense charged.” Song, 2012 Guam 21 ¶ 29. [63] Pinaula argues that “[n]o witness testified regarding Pinaula’s alleged intent,” Appellant’s Br. at 17, apparently implying that intent must be proven by direct evidence or testimony. We reiterate that intent can be proven by circumstantial evidence, and “‘entirely circumstantial’ evidence is sufficient to support a guilty verdict.” People v. McKinney, 2016 Guam 3 ¶ 22 (quoting United States v. Boskic, 545 F.3d 69, 85 (1st Cir. 2008)); see also Anastacio, 2010 Guam 18 ¶ 33 (“intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence”). In a similar vein, Pinaula argues more broadly that the case against him was deficient because various types of evidence were missing, such as eye-witness testimony, clear security camera footage, DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, 4. Receive, retain, or dispose of the moveable property of Morrico Equipment, that is, a 2006 Mitsubishi Fuso Flat Bed Truck (GLP#238CV); 5. Knowing that it had been stolen or believing that it had probably been stolen. RA, tab 87 at Instr. 6a (Jury Instrs., Aug. 28, 2019). People v. Pinaula, 2022 Guam 3, Opinion Page 27 of 37 and forensic evidence. Appellant’s Br. at 16-17. None of these were required, and we repeat: circumstantial or direct evidence may support a guilty verdict. Jesus, 2009 Guam 2 ¶ 62. [64] The People did present sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish a nexus between Pinaula and the truck, as well as his intent to receive and retain it. During trial, the defendant’s Uncle Herbert positively identified the Morrico truck in photographs as the vehicle he saw parked in the backyard of the property next to his home where it was discovered by GPD. Herbert further testified that Pinaula resided on that property with his mother7 and that after he saw the truck, he questioned Pinaula about its origins, to which Pinaula responded “it was [his] friend’s truck.” Tr. at 77-80, 89 (Jury Trial, Aug. 27, 2019). We assume, arguendo, that Herbert’s testimony about the statement was not hearsay and was properly admitted under Guam Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) (defining as “not hearsay” a statement which “is offered against a party and is the party’s own statement”). This admission by Pinaula, along with Herbert’s testimony and other evidence about discovery of the truck, is enough to reasonably infer that Pinaula intentionally received and retained the truck. [65] Herbert also testified he did not see the truck the day before his conversation with Pinaula. Because of the timeframe that Molinos learned of the truck’s location after it went missing from the Morrico facility, the immediate discovery of the truck by GPD shortly thereafter, and that Herbert did not see the truck the night before his conversation with Pinaula, the jury could make the reasonable inference that Pinaula intentionally received and retained the truck sometime after it went missing from the Morrico facility. While the jury had to rely on inferences from the circumstantial evidence, its finding was not “‘so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of 7 Although Herbert testified that Pinaula lived at the house with his mother, according to the arresting officer the defendant’s mother asserted several times that the defendant did not stay with her, and he was in fact apprehended elsewhere. People v. Pinaula, 2022 Guam 3, Opinion Page 28 of 37 bare rationality.’” Quintanilla, 2020 Guam 8 ¶ 11 (quoting People v. Taitano, 2015 Guam 33 ¶ 12). [66] Neither party disputes that the truck belonged to Morrico. Molinos testified that when he arrived at the Morrico facility, he noticed the front gate was open and that a chain used to secure the gate had been cut. He also testified that as he surveyed the facility, he observed a truck was missing; this was confirmed by surveillance footage viewed by Officer Querubin showing, around midnight, movements inside and around the truck and a vehicle later exiting the facility. Because of the GPS tracking device installed on the truck, Molinos tracked the truck to an area in Adacao behind a residence where it was identified shortly thereafter by GPD. And defense counsel explained during opening statements that the case was “about stolen property.” Tr. at 19 (Jury Trial, Aug. 27, 2019). [67] The People introduced evidence from which the jury could have found the first, second, and third elements of the crime of Theft by Receiving, that is Pinaula (i) intentionally; (ii) received, retained, or disposed of; (iii) the movable property of another. There was no evidence presented, however, from which the jury could have inferred the fourth element of the crime: that the defendant knew or believed that the truck was probably stolen. The prosecution provided evidence showing that the truck was found in a field behind the defendant’s house, that it had been parked there since approximately 4:00 a.m., that the defendant knew of the truck, and that the truck had been tampered with. [68] But there was nothing to show that the defendant had examined the truck, knew of its condition, or had reason to be suspicious of the truck other than that it bore commercial insignia. Officer Wright testified that the truck looked to be “in disarray” and that the ignition “appeared to be tampered with,” but no witness or other evidence established that Pinaula had gotten close People v. Pinaula, 2022 Guam 3, Opinion Page 29 of 37 enough to the truck to perceive the condition of the vehicle. Id. at 72, 90 (providing testimony from defendant’s uncle that although the defendant “went over,” Herbert could not “really remember if [the defendant] was over at the vehicle”). The dissent acknowledges that no witness or evidence established Pinaula was aware of the condition of the truck but suggests anyone who received and retained it could see that it was stolen, and this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. But Herbert’s testimony, crucial to establishing a nexus between Pinaula and the truck, undermines this belief. Although Herbert testified that Pinaula told him that the truck belonged to Pinaula’s friend, Herbert also testified that he had no suspicions about the truck “because I’ve never known him to actually bring something back there that didn’t belong to us.” Id. at 80. The arresting officer testified that he executed a search warrant of the defendant’s house but could not recall finding any of the missing air compressor bolts or hoses. [69] The dissent emphasizes that evidence to submit a guilty verdict may be wholly circumstantial and that on appeal this court should not reweigh the evidence. See infra ¶ 74. With this we concur. Here, we do not insert ourselves as factfinders, choosing between reasonable interpretations of the evidence. Rather, we find that insufficient evidence was presented to support a finding that Pinaula knew or believed that the truck was probably stolen. Without evidence, circumstantial or direct, no reasonable inferences may be drawn supporting this element of the crime charged. The People admit that the direct evidence was scant and urge us to rely on “the circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from it” to uphold the verdict. See Appellee’s Br. at 5, 12, 19. The problem here is that the circumstantial evidence presented by the People merely raises a suspicion that Pinaula is guilty and is insufficient to satisfy the People’s burden to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. See Quintanilla, 2020 Guam 8 ¶ 11 (a People v. Pinaula, 2022 Guam 3, Opinion Page 30 of 37 jury must not be allowed to convict only on mere suspicion and innuendo). The insufficiency is underscored by the trial court’s dismissal of the other charge of Theft by Receiving of the Light Tower. The only additional facts tying the truck to the defendant were the truck on the property where Herbert alleged the defendant lived and the testimony that Pinaula told Herbert that the truck “was [his] friend’s.” Tr. at 77-79, 89 (Jury Trial, Aug. 27, 2019). This is insufficient to establish the fourth element of Theft by Receiving: that the defendant knew or believed that the truck had probably been stolen. Because the People did not carry their burden to produce any direct or circumstantial evidence from which a jury might infer that Pinaula knew or believed the truck was likely stolen, the conviction must be reversed. B. Hearsay and Prosecutorial Misconduct [70] Because we reverse the defendant’s conviction for insufficiency of the evidence, we need not reach the issue of whether Herbert’s testimony about Pinaula’s statement was hearsay, nor the prosecution’s allegedly improper statements to the jury. See Unpingco v. Derry, 2021 Guam 1 ¶ 21.