The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed the criminal convictions of Derick James Simmons on five counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving two minors under the age of 14. The court's decision in *People of Guam v. Derick James Simmons* rejected multiple arguments raised by the defense regarding jury instructions, evidence admissibility, and potential juror bias.
Simmons was found guilty at trial of touching the vagina of victim R.D., a minor under 14, in four separate instances, and touching the vagina of victim R.C., also a minor under 14, in one instance. Each count violated 9 GCA § 25.20(a)(1) and (b), Guam's statute covering second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
The case originated in the Superior Court of Guam under case number CF0242-20 before proceeding to the Supreme Court on appeal as case CRA24-010. The three-justice panel heard oral arguments on Feb. 27, 2025, in Hagåtña.
During the original trial, Simmons's defense counsel raised several objections that became the basis for the appeal. The defense objected to a jury instruction stating that victim testimony does not require corroboration in criminal sexual conduct prosecutions. The trial court denied the motion to exclude this instruction, a ruling that was challenged on appeal.
The defense also raised a hearsay objection to a statement made to police, which the trial court overruled. This evidentiary ruling became another grounds for appeal as Simmons's attorneys argued the statement should not have been admitted.
A significant development occurred before sentencing when Simmons discovered that a juror had a prior relationship with the victims' grandmother, who served as a prosecution witness during the trial. This revelation prompted Simmons to file a motion for a new trial, arguing that the undisclosed relationship violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
The case was handled by experienced legal counsel on both sides. Assistant Public Defenders Brian P. Eggleston and Christian F. Spotanski represented Simmons, with Eggleston handling the brief and Spotanski arguing before the Supreme Court. Assistant Attorney General Christine Santos Tenorio from the Office of the Attorney General's General Crimes Division represented the People of Guam.
The Supreme Court panel consisted of Chief Justice Robert J. Torres and Associate Justices F. Philip Carbullido and Katherine A. Maraman. Associate Justice Carbullido authored the court's opinion.
The appeal centered on three main issues that defense counsel argued warranted overturning the convictions or granting a new trial. The jury instruction issue involved whether telling jurors that victim testimony need not be corroborated in sexual conduct cases prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Regarding the hearsay evidence, the defense contended that allowing the police statement into evidence violated established rules of evidence and due process protections. The prosecution defended the admission of the statement as properly admissible under applicable exceptions to the hearsay rule.
The juror bias claim presented perhaps the most complex issue for the court to resolve. Simmons argued that the juror's undisclosed relationship with a key prosecution witness created an appearance of impropriety that fundamentally undermined the jury's impartiality. The defense contended this violated constitutional guarantees of a fair trial by an impartial jury.
The prosecution countered that the relationship did not rise to the level of actual bias and that proper jury selection procedures were followed. The state argued that Simmons failed to demonstrate that the relationship affected the juror's ability to fairly evaluate the evidence.
Criminal sexual conduct cases involving minors present unique challenges for courts, particularly regarding evidence rules and jury instructions. Guam law, like many jurisdictions, recognizes that child victims may face particular difficulties in reporting and testifying about sexual abuse.
The Supreme Court's decision to affirm the convictions suggests the justices found that the trial court properly handled the evidentiary issues and that Simmons received a fair trial despite the disclosed juror relationship. The court likely determined that the jury instructions were appropriate under Guam law and that the admitted evidence met applicable standards.
This case reflects ongoing legal challenges in prosecuting sexual offenses against children while ensuring defendants receive fair trials with proper procedural protections. The balance between protecting child victims and preserving due process rights continues to evolve through appellate decisions like this one.
The affirmance of Simmons's convictions means his original sentences will stand unless he pursues further appellate options. The decision also provides guidance for future criminal sexual conduct prosecutions in Guam regarding jury instructions, evidence admissibility, and juror disclosure requirements.
The case demonstrates the Guam Supreme Court's continued role in reviewing criminal convictions and ensuring that both victim rights and defendant protections are properly balanced within the territory's justice system.