The Supreme Court of Guam has affirmed the criminal sexual conduct convictions of Duayne Richard Peters, rejecting his arguments that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing his wife's testimony against him. The opinion, filed as *People of Guam v. Duayne Richard Peters* (2025 Guam 1), addresses significant questions about spousal testimony and plea agreements in criminal cases.
Peters was convicted on four counts of First-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and two counts of Second-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, along with two Vulnerable Victim Special Allegations. The case originated in Superior Court under case number CF0112-20 before proceeding to the territory's highest court as case number CRA23-008.
The central issue on appeal concerned the testimony of Peters' wife, identified as N.P., who entered into a plea agreement with the government and subsequently testified against her husband. According to court documents, a grand jury had initially indicted both Peters and his wife for criminal sexual conduct involving the same victim.
Peters argued that the trial court erred when it permitted his wife to plead guilty and testify against him under circumstances that placed her under "strong compulsion to testify in a particular manner." Despite his wife's admission to abusing the victim herself, Peters contended that she "testified at the insistence of the Government that the abuse was committed by Mr. Peters."
The defendant's legal team, led by attorney Joshua D. Walsh of Razzano Walsh & Torres, P.C., challenged the reliability and voluntariness of the spousal testimony. Peters maintained that the plea agreement created an improper incentive for his wife to provide testimony favorable to the prosecution, potentially compromising the integrity of the proceedings.
The government's position was presented by Assistant Attorney General Christine Santos Tenorio, who defended the use of the plea agreement and the resulting testimony. The Office of the Attorney General argued that the wife's cooperation was properly obtained and that her testimony was admissible under Guam law.
In addition to challenging his wife's testimony, Peters raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. This argument suggested that his trial attorney failed to provide adequate representation during the criminal proceedings, though the specific details of these claims were not elaborated in the available court documents.
The Supreme Court of Guam, consisting of Chief Justice Robert J. Torres and Associate Justices F. Philip Carbullido and Katherine A. Maraman, heard oral arguments in the case on July 15, 2024, in Hagåtña. Associate Justice Katherine A. Maraman authored the court's opinion.
After considering Peters' arguments, the three-justice panel unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the trial court did not commit reversible error in allowing the wife's testimony under the plea agreement. The justices determined that the testimony was properly admitted and that any concerns about the circumstances surrounding the plea agreement did not warrant overturning the convictions.
The court's decision represents an important precedent in Guam's criminal law, particularly regarding the admissibility of spousal testimony obtained through plea agreements. The case highlights the tension between a defendant's right to challenge potentially coerced testimony and the prosecution's ability to secure cooperation from co-defendants in serious criminal cases.
The charges against Peters involved vulnerable victims, as indicated by the Special Allegations attached to his convictions. First-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct represents one of the most serious sexual assault charges under Guam law, typically involving circumstances such as the use of force, the victim's age, or other aggravating factors that elevate the severity of the offense.
Second-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, while still a serious felony, generally involves sexual contact without the aggravating circumstances required for first-degree charges. The presence of Vulnerable Victim Special Allegations suggests that the crimes involved particularly defenseless individuals, which could affect sentencing considerations.
The case reflects the complex legal and ethical issues that arise when spouses are co-defendants in criminal cases. Courts must balance several competing interests: ensuring that defendants receive fair trials, allowing prosecutors to secure necessary testimony from cooperating witnesses, and protecting the integrity of the spousal relationship.
Peters' unsuccessful appeal means his convictions on all six counts remain final. The defendant had been represented throughout the appellate process by experienced criminal defense attorney Joshua D. Walsh, whose firm handles complex criminal matters in Guam's courts.
The Supreme Court of Guam's decision in *Peters* will likely be cited in future cases involving similar issues of spousal testimony, plea agreements, and the standards for determining when such testimony becomes improperly coercive. The court's affirmance of the trial court's ruling suggests that Guam courts will continue to permit spousal testimony obtained through properly structured plea agreements, even when the testifying spouse has admitted to participating in the same criminal conduct.