Guam Superior Court excludes testimony about alleged prior family violence in CF650-24

HONOLABLE JOHN C. TERLAJE, Superior Court of Guam, issued a written Decision and Order on Aug. 22, 2025, resolving competing motions in limine in Criminal Case No. CF650-24, People of Guam v. Eric Matthew Cruz. The court considered the defendant’s motion to exclude references to prior crimes or bad acts and the People’s motion to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Guam Rules of Evidence (GRE).

The ruling states that the People had articulated a non‑propensity purpose for mentioning an alleged 2021 incident of family violence involving the victim’s adoptive mother, Antionette Cruz, and that, under GRE Rules 401 and 402, the prior allegation is relevant to issues the People identified — namely motive and the timeline of events. The court therefore declined to grant the defendant’s motion on relevance grounds.

However, after applying GRE Rule 403, the court concluded the probative value of testimony about the alleged prior physical abuse is low and that admitting it would create a danger of unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs any probative value. The Decision and Order states that such evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury," and finds that to be the case here. The court granted the defendant's motion in limine under Rule 403 and ordered that testimony concerning the defendant’s alleged abuse of Antionette Cruz be inadmissible at trial.

The written order notes the People’s stated use: to show why the victim, identified in the record as B.C., would not have a motive to fabricate allegations and to place events on a timeline. The court described that theory as attenuated and limited, and said that the same facts could be interpreted in different ways — including as a possible incentive to fabricate — such that the probative value was low.

The Decision and Order references controlling evidentiary principles and authority, including GRE Rules 401–403, the Organic Act of Guam and cited precedent (People v. Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9, and United States v. Sampson, 980 F.2d 883). The order does not resolve other issues the People raised under Rule 404(b) or Rule 413, which the court said are addressed in separate filings.

The order was filed Aug. 22, 2025; it directs that testimony concerning the defendant’s alleged abuse of the victim’s mother be excluded from trial. No finding of guilt or innocence on the charges in CF650-24 is made in this procedural ruling.

Notes: The court’s written decision emphasizes the narrowness of its exclusion: it excludes the specific testimony about the alleged prior family violence against Antionette Cruz as inadmissible under Rule 403 while recognizing that relevance under Rules 401–402 was shown by the People.