The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed the conviction of AJ Muna Toves for second-degree robbery with a special allegation of deadly weapon use, rejecting his appeal in a decision issued as 2024 Guam 14. The case represents a significant appellate ruling on robbery prosecution standards in the U.S. territory.
Toves was convicted by a Superior Court jury on charges stemming from Superior Court Case No. CF0510-22. Following his conviction, Toves appealed to the territory's highest court, raising two primary challenges to his conviction that the justices ultimately rejected.
The Supreme Court of Guam heard oral arguments in the case on Oct. 21, 2024, in Hagåtña. The three-justice panel consisted of Chief Justice Robert J. Torres, who authored the opinion, Associate Justice F. Philip Carbullido, and Associate Justice Katherine A. Maraman.
Toves raised two main arguments on appeal, both centered on his interpretation of Guam's second-degree robbery statute. First, he argued there was insufficient evidence to sustain his robbery conviction because prosecutors failed to prove that a theft actually occurred. Second, he contended that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on attempted second-degree robbery as a lesser included offense, arguing that the evidence showed at most an unsuccessful attempt to commit theft.
The court's analysis focused on the statutory language of 9 GCA § 40.40, which defines the elements of second-degree robbery. Under Guam law, second-degree robbery requires that an act occur "in the course of committing a theft." The key issue was whether this language requires proof of a completed theft or whether an attempted theft suffices.
Chief Justice Torres, writing for the unanimous court, found that both of Toves' arguments were "foreclosed by the plain language" of the statute. The court emphasized that the robbery statute specifically states: "An act occurs in the course of committing a theft if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft." This language, the court held, clearly encompasses attempted theft within the definition of robbery.
The court's interpretation resolves an important question about the scope of robbery prosecutions in Guam. By affirming that attempted theft can satisfy the statutory requirements for second-degree robbery, the decision clarifies that defendants can be convicted of robbery even when they do not successfully complete a theft.
This statutory interpretation aligns with the general principle that robbery is an offense against both property and personal safety. The crime protects not only against the loss of property but also against the violence or threat of violence used in connection with theft attempts. The court's ruling reinforces that the use of force or intimidation during an unsuccessful theft attempt can still constitute robbery.
The case was prosecuted by Acting Deputy Attorney General Nathan M. Tennyson from the Office of the Attorney General. Toves was represented on appeal by Stephen P. Hattori, the Public Defender from the Public Defender Service Corporation.
The conviction included a special allegation of deadly weapon use, which can enhance sentencing under Guam law. This enhancement recognizes the increased danger posed when weapons are involved in violent crimes, even during unsuccessful criminal attempts.
The Supreme Court's decision provides important guidance for future robbery prosecutions in Guam. The ruling clarifies that prosecutors need not prove a completed theft to secure a robbery conviction, as long as they can demonstrate that force or intimidation was used during an attempted theft.
This interpretation is consistent with how many jurisdictions handle similar cases. Robbery statutes typically focus on the use of force or threat during theft-related conduct, rather than requiring proof that property was actually taken. The court's analysis reinforces this approach in Guam's legal framework.
The decision also has implications for jury instructions in future robbery cases. Trial courts can now rely on this precedent when determining whether to give lesser included offense instructions for attempted robbery. The Supreme Court's holding suggests that such instructions may not be warranted when the evidence supports a full robbery charge under the attempt provision of the statute.
For criminal defense practitioners in Guam, the decision clarifies the challenges involved in defending against robbery charges. The court's interpretation makes clear that unsuccessful theft attempts can still result in serious robbery convictions when accompanied by force or weapon use.
The affirmance of Toves' conviction stands as a reminder of Guam's commitment to prosecuting violent crimes effectively. The territory's highest court has now established clear precedent that robbery prosecutions can proceed even when theft attempts are unsuccessful, provided the statutory elements are otherwise met.
The case citation is People of Guam v. AJ Muna Toves, 2024 Guam 14, decided by the Supreme Court of Guam in an appeal from the Superior Court of Guam.