{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f83\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02030504050205020304}Centaur;} {\f172\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f185\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f186\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f188\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;} {\f189\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f190\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f191\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f192\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;} {\f193\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255; \red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{ \s16\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\ls1\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Level 1;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel \levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3 \levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname AutoList1;}\listid1}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1\listoverridecount8{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel \listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel \levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}\ls1}} {\*\rsidtbl \rsid3630246\rsid5841343\rsid8682866\rsid9508377\rsid10761150}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min2} {\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy15\hr16\min40}{\version4}{\edmins3}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords4101}{\nofchars23378}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws27425}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1170 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot8682866 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8682866 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8682866 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8682866 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8682866 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1170\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid8682866\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid8682866 People of Guam v. Joaquin C. Camacho, Jr.,}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 Opinion, 1999 Guam 27\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid8682866 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5841343 10}}}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 of 15 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid8682866 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5841343 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid8682866 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid8682866 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid3630246\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 PEOPLE OF GUAM}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par Plaintiff-Appellee \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 vs.}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 JOAQUIN C. CAMACHO, JR.}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 OPINION}{\b\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid3630246\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Supreme Court Case No. CRA98-011 \par Superior Court Criminal Case No. CF0523-96 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Filed: October 29, 1999 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Cite as: 1999 Guam 27}{\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on May 14, 1999 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid3630246 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5130\clshdrawnil \cellx5010\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4230\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }{\ul\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Representing the Plaintiff-Appellee:}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par David M. Moore \par Assistant Attorney General \par Office of the Attorney General \par Prosecution Division \par 2-200E Judicial Ctr. Bldg. \par 120 W O}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Brien Dr. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell \par }{\ul\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Representing the Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par Richard Parker Arens, Esq. \par Cunliffe & Cook, A Professional Corp. \par 210 Archbishop Flores, Suite 200 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5130\clshdrawnil \cellx5010 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4230\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 BEFORE:}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Chief Justice, PETER C. SIGUENZA, Associate Justice, and JOHN A. MAN GLONA, Designated Justice. \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 CRUZ, CJ:}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }{\insrsid3630246\charrsid3630246 \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [1]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Defendant-Appellant, Joaquin C. Camacho, Jr. appeals his conviction for two (2) counts of Murder (as a 1st Degree Felony) and two (2) Special Allegations of Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commiss ion of a Felony. The Defendant-Appellant seeks a reversal of the convictions based upon: (1)}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 the trial court's failure to give a self-defense jury instruction; (2)}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 ineffective assistance of counsel for failure of counsel to request a self-defense jury instruction; (3)}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 the trial court's failure to suppress statements and evidence derived from an unlawful delay in bringing the defendant before a judge, pursuant to 8 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10(a) (1993); and (4)}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdicts.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The trial court}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s decisions are affirmed. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND}{\b\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid5841343\charrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [2]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab On or about September 20, 1996, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Offi cer Peter J. Santos was conducting a check upon the One Stop Business License Center in Anigua. During this check, Officer Santos found a person lying on the ground. Upon approaching the individual, Officer Santos noticed that she had two deep cuts on bot h sides of her neck and was bleeding quite heavily from her wounds. The individual was dressed like a woman, wearing a black lace jacket, a black sports bra, and white denim shorts.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Officer Santos called for medics and began interviewing the individual, who, at the time, was alert and breathing steadily.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [3]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The victim identified herself}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 as Raymond Santos (in trial court it was acknowledged that she also went by the name of Rita)}{ \cs15\super\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8682866 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8682866 In this case we will refer to the victim as Raymond/Rita Santos and use feminine pronouns to identify her. First, this is done to differentiate between her and the Appellant in addition to differentiating between her and the police officer who shares the same last name. Second, both parties refer to Raymond/Rita Santos as }{\fs20\insrsid8682866 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 she}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 in their briefs. }}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 and told Officer Santos what had happened to her. According to Raymond/Ri ta Santos, she was picked up by the person who caused her injuries at about 11:00 p.m. behind Club Texas in Anigua. She also recalled that her attacker was driving a Nissan Sentra. Raymond/Rita Santos said that she was driven to the area behind the One St op building, where she was stabbed, then dumped by the assailant.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 She described her attacker to Officer Santos as being }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 light complected, male, possibl[y] Chamorro, in his late thirties with long black hair.}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\cs15\super\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\super\insrsid8682866 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8682866 Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 s Brief at 4 (December 28, 1998); Record of Transcript vol. VIII, p. 40 (Trial, August 12, 1997).}}}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Raymond/Rita Santos also stated to Officer Santos the attack occurred inside the car and that the person who attacked her was not standing up at the time of the attack.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [4]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab At the time Raymond/Rita Santos was found, Officer Santos noticed that the bra she wore was soaked in blood from the neck wounds. Officer Santos also noted that Raymond/Rita Santos was not wearing any shoes and none were found in the area. Raymond/Rita Santos eventually died from the wounds she suffered from during the attack.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [5]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab Mr. Joaquin Camacho, Sr. testified that, on September 21, 1996, the day following the attack, his son, Joaquin Camacho, Jr. (hereinafter "the Appellant"), was distraught after reading the Sunday edition of the }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Pacific Daily News}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 that headlined: "Two Killings in 24 Hours."}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Mr. Camacho testified that the next day he went to his son}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s place of work to talk at which time the Appellant broke down and cried.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant then exclaimed, "I stabbed the guy."}{ \insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 After talking to his son, it was Mr. Camacho's understanding that the Appellant was involved in a fight with several individuals and that the Appellant had stabbed one of the individuals. Mr. Camacho eventually went to the Attorney General's Office to rep ort the incident.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s father believed, based upon the explanation of the Appellant, that the stabbing was in self-defense.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [6]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab On or about October 15, 1996, officers from the Guam Police Department were sent to find the Appellant at his apartment.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 At approximately 7:39 a.m., they observed the Appellant walking toward a gold Nissan Sentra. The officers approached the Appellant at which time Officer Nicholas Wellein asked if the Appellant could be intervi ewed at the Criminal Investigation Section (CIS). The Appellant agreed to accompany the officers and upon his arrival at CIS he was advised of his rights.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [7]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab Officer Wellein began interviewing the Appellant at approximately 8:25 a.m.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant explain ed that he was involved in a fight with transvestites at the One Stop building in Anigua. In this initial interview, the Appellant did not admit that he stabbed any person and that he had left the area after he was able to escape from his attackers.}{ \insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant provided a written statement, consented to be fingerprinted, photographed, and to have his apartment searched.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 However, he was not arrested after this interview.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [8]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab Officer Wellein began a second interview of the Appellant after the written statement from the first interview was completed.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 After the Appellant was urged to tell the truth, the Appellant began crying and stated "I did it. I was the one who stabbed her."}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Officer Wellein continued the interview and asked the Appellant to give more details. The Appellant stated that he picked up a "woman" wearing a white top and black shorts outside the Ginza Massage.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant later called the woman "one of the gays" who "asked him if he needed her services."}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 He then drove to the back of the One Stop building.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant stated that he and the woman got out of the car and went to the beach. The Appellant stated that he then confronted the woman about a previous altercation he had with the woman and her friends.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [9]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab According to the Appellant, the w oman then reached inside her purse and when the Appellant turned around the woman had a knife in her hand. The Appellant claimed that the woman came toward him with the knife. The Appellant stated that he took the knife away from the woman, pulled her for ward and began stabbing her in her neck, side, and in the back. After making this admission, the Appellant was not formally arrested by Officer Wellein, despite the fact that Officer Wellein had probable cause to do so.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Officer Wellein testified that he wan ted to get more information and requested the Appellant to provide a second written statement and to draw sketches regarding the events of September 20, 1996. The sketches prepared by the Appellant were shown to the jury and admitted into evidence.}{ \insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [10]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab Af ter completing the written statement and the sketches, Officer Weillen asked the Appellant if he was willing to do a reenactment of the incident. The Appellant, Officer Weillen, and a crime lab technician proceeded to the area where the Appellant first pi c ked up the woman he stabbed. Shortly thereafter, they proceeded to the area behind the One Stop building where the car was parked and then to the site of the stabbing. During the reenactment, the Appellant referred to the woman as "Meshan." After the vide o reenactment, the Appellant was still not arrested.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 They then proceeded up to the Appellant's apartment to locate certain items of evidence. Only after interviewing the Appellant twice and asking him for sketches and a video reenactment did Officer Weillen arrest him.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant was then formally arrested at approximately 6:10 p.m. and appeared before a magistrate at around 6:20 p.m., on October 15, 1996.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [11]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Appellant was indicted on two (2) counts of Murder (as a 1st Degree Felony) and A Special A llegation of Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony with each count of murder. Prior to the trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence for failing to bring Appellant before a judge without unnecessary delay and to su ppress defendant's statements because of a violation of the }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb-Mallory }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 rule.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 See }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 8 GCA }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10; }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Mallory v. United States }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356 (1957); }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb v}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 .}{\b\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 United States, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608 (1943), }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 reh}{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 g denied, }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 391 U.S. 784, 63 S.Ct. 1322 (1943). Both motions were denied by the trial court.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [12]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab A jury trial was held and the People rested after presenting evidence over a four-day period. After the People rested their case, the Appellant moved for a Judgment of Acquittal citing insufficiency of the evidence. The Court denied the motion. The Appellant was eventually found guilt y of both counts in the indictment including the special allegations.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [13]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Appellant filed a motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdicts on August 21, 1997. After hearing oral argument on the matter, the trial court issued a decision and order deny ing the Appellant's motion. The Appellant was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for count two in the indictment, Murder (as a 1st Degree Felony), and received a consecutive sentence of twenty-five }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 (25) }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 years imprisonment for the special allegation in count two, Possession and Use of Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Felony.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Sentencing was deferred for Count One and the special allegation. The appeal was timely filed. The Appellant is presently incarcerated.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 DISCUSSION}{\b\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid5841343\charrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [14]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab This court has jurisdiction based upon 8 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 130.15 (a) (1993), 7 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}} {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 3107 and 3108 (1994).}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [15]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Appellant presents the court with four issues to consider.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The first issue raised by the Appellant is whether the trial court's failure to give a self-defense jury instruction, }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 sua sponte}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 , is reversible error. The Appellant states that he was deprived of his constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence because the trial court failed to give a jury instruction of self-defense.}{ \insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 We review this issue for plain error.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 8 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 90.19 (1993) and }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 130.50 (1993); }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 People of Guam v. Ueki, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 1999 Guam 4, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 17-18.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [16]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Appellant's second issue is that his trial counsel failed to requ est a self-defense jury instruction which rendered his assistance to the Appellant as ineffective. The Appellant believes that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to request a self-defense jury instruction.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 We review this matter }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 de novo}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 .}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 People v. Quintanilla,}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 1998 Guam 17, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 8.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [17]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The third issue raised by the Appellant is whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements and evidence because of the unnecessary delay in bringing the A ppellant before a Superior Court judge.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant relies upon 8 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10,}{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 which requires that a person be brought before a judge of the Superior Court "without unnecessary delay."}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 8 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10(a).}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 This matter will be reviewed }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 de novo}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 .}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Coffey v. Government of Guam, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 1997 Guam 14, }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 6.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [18]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The fina l issue raised by the Appellant is whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdicts. Appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of any of the ch arges.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 We review this last concern }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 de novo}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 .}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 People of Guam v. Quinata, }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 1999 Guam 6, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 9; }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 People of Guam v. Cruz, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 1998 Guam 18, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 8.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 A.\tab SELF-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [19]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Appellant argues that the trial court should have given a }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 sua sponte }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 jury instruction of self-defense and that the trial court's failure to do so prejudiced the Appellant.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 In support of this position, he primarily relies upon }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 People v. Mayweather, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 66 Cal.Rptr. 547 (1968), which reversed a conviction because of the trial court's failure to give a self-defense instruction. Unlike this case, in }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Mayweather}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 the failure to give the instruction was not reviewed under the plain error standard.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [20]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab Courts are not bound to present every conceivable defense potentially suggested by the evidence. }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 See United States v. Span, }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 970 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit found no plain error in a court's failure to give a jury instruction regarding excessive forc e where the Appellant did not present such a defense and the Appellant did not request the instruction. }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id. }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at 578.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [21]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab Based upon the facts presented here, we find that the failure of the trial court to give a self-defense jury instruction }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 sua sponte }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 does not rise to the level of plain error. As in }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Span, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 the Appellant here did not present a self-defense theory at trial but instead relied upon an alternative theory that he did not commit the crime.}{\cs15\super\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8682866 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8682866 As a tangential matter, the Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 s counsel would have had a difficult time presenting a self-defense claim given the facts of the case. The Appellees note that the idea of a man who is over six feet tall and over two hundred pounds fearing a transvestite less tha n five feet tall and around one hundred forty pounds is unlikely. Appellee}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8682866 s Brief at 12-13 (January 27, 1999); Transcript, vol. X, p. 165 (Jury Trial, August 14, 1997). Even if Appellant were afraid of Raymond/Rita, inflicting multiple knife wounds in the neck, chest, and back goes far beyond meeting an aggressor with equal fo rce.}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The court could not logically reverse on this issue when the two defenses basically exclude each other.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 In addition, the Appellant did not request the instruction. Reversal is not warranted on these bases.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 B.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx720\faauto\ls1\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3630246 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL}{\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [22]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab As a result of defense counsel}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s failure to request a self-defense jury instruction, the Appellant claims that his assistance of counsel was ineffective.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 In a recent decision, }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 People v. Kintaro,}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 this court reiterated that in determining whether a criminal defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel we will employ the two-prong test from the U.S. Supreme Court in }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Strickland v. Washington}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984).}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 People v. Kintaro}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 , 1999 Guam 15, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 11.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The first prong requires that a defendant demonstrate that his trial counsel}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s performance was deficient.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 In the second prong, the defendant must prove the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id. (citing Quintanilla}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 8). }{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [23]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab Applying the first prong of this test, the Appellant claims that a jury instruction for self-defense should have been requested in light of the evidence presented, but trial counsel failed to do so.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 In examining this claim, the court must judge the reasonableness of counsel}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s challenged conduct, or lack thereof, based upon the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s conduct.}{\b\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Kintaro }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 12; }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Quintanilla}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 9 (}{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 quoting Washington,}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 466 U.S . at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066).}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [24]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab In counsel}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s notice of witnesses and nature of defense, he raises three possible defenses: 1)}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 the act was in self-defense, 2) he lacked the necessary mens rea for the offenses charged, and 3) another person committed the crime.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 During trial, however, trial counsel abandoned the self-defense and mens rea theories, instead arguing to the jury that the Appellant was not the person who stabbed Raymond/Rita Santos. }{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [25]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab In }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Kintaro}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 , an appellant challenged his driving under the influence (DUI) conviction.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The appellant argued that his lawyer provided him with ineffective assistance by failing to object when the prosecution relied solely upon appellant}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s admission and offered no proof that appellant was driving on that occasion.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Kintaro}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 13.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 We disagreed with appellant in that case because we noted that appellant}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s defense needed to admit that appellant was driving at the time of his arrest in order to assert other defenses.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id. }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 16.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [26]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab As in }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Kintaro}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 , we will not find fault in an attorney}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s performance because the attorney chose a consistent line of defense, rather than an exhaustive one.}{\b\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The nature of the self-defense theory and the theory pursued at trial are inherently irreconcilable.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Under a theory of self-defense, the Appellant would essentially admit to the act and argue that it was done in self-defense, compared to the latter defense, relied upon at trial that the Appellant did not commit the crime.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Based upon the facts of the case and the record presented, the indication is that the decision to pursue that particular defense was sound.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The probability of an acquittal would have been increased also by arguing that another person committed the crime rather than admitting to the act and arguing self-defense.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [27]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab It is true that the facts presented at trial also make a good case for self-defense, but the decision not to argue self-defense was reasonable in light of another theory that was not only more viable, but also provided a higher chance of acquittal. Trial counsel's conduct was a strategic decision and was reasonable under the circumstances. With a finding of reasonableness regarding trial counsel's conduct, the issue of p rejudice need not be addressed further.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 C.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 MCNABB-MALLORY RULE }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 AND}{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 DELAY IN ARRAIGNING}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [28]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Appellant argues next that the trial court erred in not suppressing his confession and other evidence obtained prior to his appearance before a magistrate. The Appellant contends that his statements and other evidence gathered during questioning should be suppressed because of the failure of the police to bring him before a Superior Court judge "without unnecessary delay," pursuant to 8 GCA }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10. Appellant also asserts that the delay in bringing him before a judge violated the }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb-Mallory }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 rule.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Mallory v. United States, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356 (1957); }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb v}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 .}{\b\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 United States, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608 (1943)}{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 .}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10, provides in relevant part:}{\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10}{ \b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Duty to Deliver Arrestee to Judge, or to Peace Officer.}{\b\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\b\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 (a)\tab An officer making an arrest under a warrant or any p erson making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before a judge of the Superior Court.}{\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 . . .}{\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 (c)\tab The person arrested shall in all cases be taken before the judge within twenty-four hours after the arrest, ex cept that within the 24-hour period expires on a day when the Superior Court is not in session, the time shall be extended to include the duration of the next regular court session on the judicial day immediately following.}{\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid5841343 \par }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 See also}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a).}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The note to this statute states that "although Subsection (c) sets a maximum time period, the basic test in all cases requires no unnecessary delay."}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [29]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb-Mallory }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 rule was formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce compliance with Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb-Mallory }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 rule, any evidence obtained by police during interrogation after arrest, may not be used against that arrestee at trial where there was an unreasonable delay in bringing the arrestee before a magistrate for arraignment. }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 See Mallory v. United States }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356 (1957); }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb v}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 .}{\b\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 United States, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608 (1942). Although the main concern expressed by the Court focused upon coercive measures to obtain a confession, the ruling was broad enough to cover any other evidence obtained during the period between post-arrest and pre-arraignment. Despite Congress}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 limiting the effect of this rule upon federal law enforcement, Guam nonetheless adopted and has maintained the procedural safeguards stated in}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb-Mallory, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 through 8 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [30]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Appellant argues that although the police had probable cause to arrest the Appellant after he confessed to stabbing "Meshan,}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 they did not arrest him for the purpose of continuing the investigation and eliciting damaging statements from the Appellant. While the Appellant is not explicit abo ut this particular point, he suggests that this unreasonable delay should lead to the court}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 finding that his statements to the police were involuntary in nature and should therefore have been suppressed. He additionally notes that this unreasonable delay would also support a finding that the }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Miranda}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 waiver may be involuntary as well.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [31]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab In support of his argument, the Appellant cites }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 United States v.}{\b\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Wilson, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 838 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the Ninth Circuit examined the voluntariness of a confession. The court ruled that where the Appellant was arrested and then held for more than six hours for interrogation, the confession given by the Appellant was deemed involuntary in nature.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id. }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at 1087. The court found that delay "in excess of six hours can itself form the basis for a finding of involuntariness." }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [32]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab However, in this case, the People argues that the right to be brought before a judge for arraignment under 8 GCA }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 45.10}{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 attaches only upon arrest.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Therefore, no violation occurred here because the Appellant was brought before a judge only ten}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 minutes after his formal arrest. In response to the claim of involuntariness, the People asserts that the officers took no coercive or inappropriate measures to obtain the Appellant}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s confession.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 They note that the Appellant was informed of his constitutional rights twice and chose to waive them.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Additionally, they mention that the Appellant was not detained while the police questioned him and that the police spoke with him in a cordial manner.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [33]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab A careful balancing act must be done here, as in many }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb-Mallory}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 claims.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8682866 \chftn }{\i\fs18\insrsid8682866 See}{ \fs18\insrsid8682866 }{\scaps\fs18\insrsid8682866 1 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur r. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure }{\scaps\fs18\insrsid8682866 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 9}{\fldrslt\f172\fs18}}}{ \scaps\fs18\insrsid8682866 72 (}{\fs18\insrsid8682866 3}{\fs18\super\insrsid8682866 rd}{\fs18\insrsid8682866 ed. 1999).}}}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The court must find a balance between the goals of rewarding police officers for following proper criminal procedural rules and of preventing them from using questionable tactics that would allow them to avoid these rules.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 We consider two matters in making our decision.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [34]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab In examining the issue brought before the Court, we must first decide when the Appellant was actually under arrest.}{\cs15\super\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8682866 \chftn }{\f83\fs20\insrsid8682866 Under 8 GCA }{\f83\fs20\insrsid8682866 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\f83\fs20\insrsid8682866 20.10 (1993), which defines arrest, "An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the custody of the person making the arrest."}}}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The trial court found that the Appellant was arrested at 6:10 p.m. and arraigned at 6:20 p.m. on October 15, 1996.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Based upon the ten minutes between when the Appellant was arrested and the time he appeared for the magistrate}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s hearing, the delay does not appear to be unreasonable.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant does not dispute the findings of the trial court as to when he was arrested and his first appearance before a Superior Court Judge. Without any dispute about the factual f indings relied upon the trial court to conclude that there was no unreasonable delay, no other facts presented would suggest that the trial court's decision denying the motion to suppress was wrong.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [35]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab In }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 United States v. Jackson,}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 police officers approached the defendant to question him about two}{ \insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 women who had been run over by an automobile.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The officers continued to question him without arresting him after he stated, }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 I did it.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 I}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 m sorry.}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 United States v. Jackson, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 712 F.2d 1283, 1285 (8th Cir. 1983).}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 That court opined that the time which begins the period in which the defendant must be presented to a magistrate starts as soon as the police have probable cause to arrest.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Nevertheless, the court held that, based on the case law relating to voluntary confessions, the police}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s failure to promptly arrest after having probable cause did not make the declaration involuntary.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id.}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at 1287.}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [36]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab In }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Everetts v. United States,}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 the police captured a sixteen-year-old boy suspected of robbing and killing another man.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 While they had the defendant handcuffed to a desk for eight hours, the boy made a confession which he later argued was involuntary and in violation of his }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Miranda}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 rights.}{ \insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Everetts v. United States,}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 627 A.2d 981 (D.C. 1993).}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The court was disturbed by the f acts in that case; it declared, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 In short, our concerns in this case must serve as a warning to the police that unnecessary pre-presentment delay of this length, aggravated by factors such as youth, will be met w ith serious skepticism by the courts of this jurisdiction about the voluntariness of an ensuing Miranda waiver.}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid3630246 }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id.}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at 985-86.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Still, the court held that defendant}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s confession was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Id.}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 at 986.}{ \insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [37]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab While in the instant case we are troubled by the officers}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}} }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 behavior, we do not find that they violated the }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb-Mallory}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 rule.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Given the facts that the Appellant admitted his guilt at an early point in the questioning, that he waived his constitutional rights, and that he was treated in a respectful manner while being questioned, we do not view the officers}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 actions as reversible conduct.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Nevertheless, we do not encourage this type of questioning when such strong probable cause to arrest already exists.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 We may not be as forgiving in future cases in which such questionable practices occur. }{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 D.\tab MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICTS.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [38]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence linking him to the injuries sustained by the victim Raymond/Rita Santos. H e points to the numerous inconsistencies of testimony which include his own statement of what he did and the victim}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s statement of how the crime occurred. He relies upon the testimony of Dr. Espinola to show that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime because Dr. Espinola declared that there were two attackers and two different knives used. According to Dr. Espinola's testimony, a large pool of blood would have been found inside Appellant's car, if the crime had occurred as described by the victim.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 No such blood spill was ever found in the Appellant's car. In light of}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 this evidence presented at trial, the Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to convict him.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [39]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab The People contend that sufficient evidence was presented to connect the Appellant to the crime against Raymond/Rita Santos. They point to the statement of Raymond/Rita Santos describing his attacker.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant fit that same description.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Additionally, both the described attacker and the Appellant drove Nissans.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The People also point out that the confession of the Appellant matched much of the evidence presented to the jury. Therefore, the People assert that the jury had more than enough evidence to rationally conclude that the Appellant committed the crime as charged.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [40]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab Under a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, the Court must examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the government and decide whether any rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 People v. Cruz, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 1998 Guam 18, }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 9. Upon review of the record, it is clear that the People's evidence against the Appellant was more than sufficient to convict the Appellant.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Although there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, the task of determining the weight of the evidence and inconsistencies of testimony lies within the purview of the jury. Therefore, we affirm the trial court}{ \insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s decision.}{\insrsid5841343 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 CONCLUSION}{\b\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid5841343\charrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 [41]}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \tab This case presents four issues for the Court's consideration. The first issue concerned the lack of jury instructions for self-defense.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 This court holds that the trial court's failure to give such a }{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 sua sponte }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 instruction was not error.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 The Appellant presented a defense theory that he did not commit the crime which is inconsistent with a self-defense theory.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Regarding the second issue of ineffective assistance of counsel}{ \i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 , }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 we conclude that trial counsel's decision to forego a self-defense jury instruction was reasonable in light of the defense theory presented at trial. Although we are deeply concerned about the facts surrounding the third i ssue, the alleged violation of the }{\i\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 McNabb-Mallory}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 rule, we affirm the trial court}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 s decision not to suppress the evidence.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Finally, with respect to the fourth issue of the motion for judgment of acquittal, we agr ee with the trial court that more than enough evidence was presented for the jury to rationally find the Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, we }{\b\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 AFFIRM}{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 the four conclusions of the trial court.}{\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid5841343 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 PETER C.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 SIGUENZA\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 JOHN A.}{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 MANGLONA \par Associate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid3630246 }{\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 Designated Justice}{\insrsid3630246 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5841343 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3630246 {\insrsid8682866\charrsid3630246 BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ \par Chief Justice \par }}