Attorney General and advocates back expansion of first/second‑degree sexual‑conduct elements; AG urges narrower affinity language

The committee heard testimony April 29 on Bill 33‑38, which would amend sections of Title 9, Chapter 25, Guam Code Annotated to expand the list of people whose sexual conduct with 14‑ and 15‑year‑old victims qualifies as first‑ or second‑degree criminal sexual conduct. Provisions discussed would expressly cover teachers, school aides, child‑care workers and others who exploit positions of authority, and would expand the statute’s affinity language to capture additional family‑like relationships.

Attorney General Douglas Moylan told the committee the AG’s office supports the bill’s concept and proposed additions but urged the committee to replace the bill’s broad “dating relationship”‑style affinity language with the Criminal Law Review Commission’s more detailed statutory definitions for consanguinity and affinity, which are used in probate and other statutes. Moylan warned that an overly broad ‘‘dating’’ affinity definition could criminalize distant relatives merely because of a brief dating connection and could produce appealable vagueness problems.

Assistant Attorney General Christine Tenorio, the AG’s criminal sexual‑conduct prosecutor, said the bill would allow prosecutors to bring higher‑grade charges in cases where adults exploit authority or family‑like ties with victims aged 14 or 15. “This piece of legislation would allow me to prosecute these defendants to the fullest,” she told the committee, and she urged explicit language to cover guardian‑ad‑litem appointments and appellate representation.

The Bureau of Women’s Affairs and other victim‑service advocates supported the bill’s deterrence goals and urged broader prevention and awareness work. Jane Flores of the Bureau of Women’s Affairs cited Guam Police Department and Healing Hearts Crisis Center data and said public education — bathroom stall posters, school outreach and counseling — should accompany stricter criminal penalties.

Committee members discussed policy tradeoffs including the need to protect children, avoid prosecutorial ambiguity, and ensure the statute’s definitions meet constitutional standards. Several senators requested specific technical edits: add subsection references to 9 GCA 25.2 for uniformity, clarify whether guardian‑ad‑litem and juvenile appointments are included, and adopt the Criminal Law Review Commission’s affinity / consanguinity chart to avoid appellate problems. No formal vote was recorded; the committee will accept written testimony and proposed technical edits for markup.