{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\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\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\ls1\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Level 1;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0
\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel
\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0
\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname AutoList17;}\listid1}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1\listoverridecount8{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1
\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel
\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel
\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}\ls1}}
{\*\rsidtbl \rsid4479764\rsid4853973\rsid5453469\rsid9508377\rsid16136486}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min5}
{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr11\min59}{\version4}{\edmins13}{\nofpages16}{\nofwords6502}{\nofchars37062}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws43478}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb720 
\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\rsidroot4479764 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4479764 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4479764 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4479764 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4479764 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid4479764\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 People v. Muritok}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid4479764 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid4853973 16
}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  of 22
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4479764 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-9\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid4853973 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom9\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\dpysize9\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid4479764 
\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\pararsid5453469 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 PEOPLE OF GUAM,}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par Plaintiff-Appellee,
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 vs.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 STEPHEN FRITZ MURITOK,}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  
\par Defendant-Appellant.}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Supreme Court Case No.: CRA02-001 
\par Superior Court Case No.: CF0527-00}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 OPINION}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Filed:}{\b\insrsid5453469  }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 December 24, 2003}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid5453469  }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 2003 Guam 21}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on April 30, 2003
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5453469 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\ul\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 :
\par Rosetta L. San Nicolas
\par Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General
\par General Crimes Division
\par Ste. 2-200E, Guam Judicial Ctr.
\par 120 W. O}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Brien Dr.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Appearing for Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 :
\par Curtis C. Van de Veld, Esq.
\par Associated Defense Advocates
\par Suite 213, 194 Hernan Cortes Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5453469 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil 
\cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice;}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Justice }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Pro Tempore}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [1]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab The Defendant-Appellant, Stephen 
F. Muritok, appeals from his convictions and sentence on the charges of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Causing Bodily Injuries (As a 3rd Degree Felony), Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol With Child a on Board (As a 3rd Degree Felony), D
riving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (B.A.C.) (As a Misdemeanor), Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (As a Misdemeanor) and Reckless Driving (As a Misdemeanor).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Muritok argues that: (1) the reference to Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s pre-custodial silence was a violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the trial court erred in failing to provide a curative instruction to the jury; (2) the lower court erred in admitting the evidence of Muritok}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s blood alcohol test results; and (3) the lower court erred in sentencing Muritok under the extended terms statute, in violation of }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi v. New Jersey}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 We affirm t
he convictions, but remand for resentencing within the statutory maximum found in Title 9 GCA 80.30(c), for the charges of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Causing Bodily Injuries and Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol With a Child on Boar
d.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 I.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [2]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab This criminal case stems from an auto accident witnessed by two Superior Court marshals on September 18, 2000.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
On that day, Marshals Vince Naputi and Harold Cruz witnessed a van veer off the roadway and collide into a political sign and telephone pole.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Following the accident, the driver and the child passenger were transported to the Guam Memorial Hospital for treatment.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
At the hospital, blood was drawn from the driver of the van, later identified as Muritok, and a blood-alcohol test was performed on the blood sample.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s blood-alcohol quotient was .295, more than thr}{\insrsid5453469 ee times above the legal limit.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [3]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Muritok was indicted on the following charges:}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 1.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx1440\faauto\ls1\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5453469 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol Causing Bodily Injuries (As a 3rd Degree Felony), in violation of 16 G.C.A. }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  18102(c) and 18110;
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 2.\tab}Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol With a Child on Board (As a 3rd Degree Felony), in violation of 16 G.C.A. }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  18109;
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 3.\tab}Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (BAC) (As a Misdemeanor), in violation of 16 G.C.A.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 18102(a).
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 4.\tab}Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (As a Misdemeanor), in violation of 16 G.C.A. }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  18102(b);
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 5.\tab}Reckless Driving (As a Misdemeanor), in violation of 16 G.C.A. }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  9107(a) and (b);
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 6.\tab}Improper Storage of an Open Container (As a Misdemeanor), in violation of 16 G.C.A. }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  18122.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Appellant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s Excerpts of Record, tab 1 (Amended Indictment).}{
\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [4]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab On January 2, 2002, after a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of Improper Storage of an Open Container (As 
a Misdemeanor) and a verdict of guilty on all other charges.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Appellant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s Excerpts of Record, tab 2 (Judgment).}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [5]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab On April 9, 2002, in accordance with the jury verdict, the lower court sentenced Muritok as follows:}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
As to the charge of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Causing Bodily Injuries (As a 3rd Degree Felony), ten (10) years imprisonment; three (3) years shall be suspended.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 As to the charge of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol With a 
Child on Board (As a 3rd Degree Felony), ten (10) years imprisonment; three (3) years shall be suspended, concurrent with the sentence imposed above.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 As to the charge of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (B.A.C.) (As a Misdemeanor), one (1) yea
r imprisonment, concurrent with sentences imposed above.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
As to the charge of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (As a Misdemeanor), one (1) year imprisonment, concurrent with the sentences imposed above.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 As to the charge of Reckless Driving (As a Misdemeanor), one (1) year imprisonment, concurrent with the sentences imposed above.}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par Appellant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s Excerpts of Record, tab 2 (Judgment).
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [6]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Muritok filed a timely notice of appeal on April 17, 2002.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
In this appeal, Muritok seeks a reversal of the judgment of conviction and sentence and an order remanding for a new trial, based on several grounds.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 II.}{\b\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [7]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 3107 and 3108 and Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  130.60.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 III.}{\b\insrsid4479764 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [8]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab On appeal, Muritok c
hallenges his convictions and sentences by arguing that his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated and the trial court erred in failing to provide the requested curative instruction.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 He also contends that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s blood alcohol test results.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Finally, Muritok argues that he was improperly sentenced pursuant to the extended terms statute, without a factual finding by the jury to support the enhancement, in violation of the rule announced in }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Apprendi v. New Jersey}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000).}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 A.\tab Muritok}{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s Silence}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 

\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [9]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab The first issue we address is whether the reference to Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s pre-custodial silence was a violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that no inferences of guilt may be drawn from such silence.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Specifically, Muritok argues that Officer Santo Tomas}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 testimony, that Muritok refused to answer certain questions posed to him, impinged upon his Fifth Amendment privilege and impeached his alibi defense and thus a reversal of his convictions is required.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
We disagree.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [10]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab An alleged violation of the Fifth Amendment is reviewed de novo.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Mares}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 940 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir. 1991).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The trial court}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s failure to give a requested instruction is also subject to de novo review. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Hairston}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 64 F.3d 491, 493-94 (9th Cir. 1995). 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [11]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\scaps\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 U.S. Const.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  amend. V.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The United States Supreme Court, in recognition of the Fifth Amendment pri
vilege against self-incrimination, forbids the use of a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence while }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 in custody.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Miranda v. Arizona}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 384 U.S. 436, 467-68 n.37, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1624-25 n.37 (1966).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Miranda}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  case prohibits the use of a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s post-custodial silence as substantive evidence of guilt.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764   Moreover, where a defendant chooses to take the stand, the use of the defendant}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 s postarrest silence for impeachment purposes is also forbidden.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 See Doyle v. Ohio}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 , 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240 (1976). }}}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 However, the issue of whether a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s pre-custodial silence may be used as substantive evidence of guilt is not clear.}{\insrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [12]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab As a threshold matter, we must ascertain whether Muritok was }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 in custody}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 at the time of the questioning by Officer Santo Tomas.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764   There is no evidence in the record that Muritok was formally arrested at the time of the interview by Officer Santo Tomas.}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
In doing so, we turn to }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Miranda}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 ,}{\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764   Although }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  and the cases which follow it focus on }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 custody}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
 in terms of when }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  warnings must be issued, they are determinative of when one}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid4479764 s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in the face of accusation comes into play.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 See United States v. Velarde-Gomez}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 , 269 F.3d 1023, (9th Cir. 2001) (}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 [T]he warnings mandated by }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
 are a prophylactic means of safeguarding Fifth Amendment rights --they are not the genesis of those rights, therefore, once the government places an individual in custody, that individual has a right to remain silent in the face of government questi
oning, regardless of whether the }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  warnings are given.}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  which holds that an individual is in custody when he or she is }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  Id.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
The custodial test includes looking at the circumstances surrounding the situation and assessing whether }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
a reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 People v. Santos}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 2003 Guam 1, }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  51 (}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 quoting}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Thompson v. Keohane}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 516 U.S. 99, 1}{\insrsid5453469 12, 116 S.Ct. 457, 465 (1995)).}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [13]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab It is clear that the concept of custodial interrogation extends beyond the confines of the police station.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Mathis v. United States}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503 (1968) (a prison inmate serving a state sentence was }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 in custody}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  for the purpose of questioning by a federal tax agent).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See also}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Orozco v. Texas}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095 (1969) (finding that a person who was interrogated while on his own bed, at home, in familiar surroundings, was }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 in custody}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 for the purposes of interrogation by four police officers when he was under arrest and not free to leave at the time of questioning).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
In assessing whether a hospitalized individual is in custody, other courts have looked to the atmosphere and physical surroundings at the hospital to determine whether there was restraint or compulsion by police officers or other state actors.}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See, e.g., State v. Fields}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 294 N.W.2d 404, 408 (N.D. 1980); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 State v. Brunner}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 507 P.2d 233 (Kan. 1973);}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 State v. Hoskins}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 193 N.W.2d 802 (Minn.1972); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Wofford v. State}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 952 S.W.2d 646 (Ark. 1997).}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [14]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In this case, the trial testimony reveals that Muritok was transported from the accident scene to the hospital by ambulance and medical personnel.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Officer Santo Tomas arrived at the hospital }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
to make a check on all parties involved.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. II of VI, p. 107 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Upon his arrival, he was directed to the trauma room.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Muritok was being treated there.}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Muritok }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 was being attended to or people were comi
ng in and going out of the Trauma Room, attending to him.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. II of VI, p. 108 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 When the officer approached Muritok, he }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 detected an extremely strong odor of alcoholic beverage.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  
}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript,}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 vol. II of VI, p. 109 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
He asked Muritok if he had been drinking and Muritok refused to answer.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript,}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 vol II of VI, p. 109 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The officer then asked Muritok if he would be willing to submit a blood sample for a blood-alcohol analysis and Muritok refused to answer.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript,}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 vol. II of VI, p. 109 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [15]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab It appears from the record that the deprivation of Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s freedom of action was the result of his physical condition and not police action.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Hospital personnel went in and out of his room.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 He was not separated from other patients nor was a police officer or other law enforcement officer posted to prevent his leaving.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that Officer Santo Tomas controlled the atmosphere, either by physically restraining Muritok or by ordering the trauma room personnel to restrain him in any way.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Accordingly, the court holds that Muritok was not in custody at the time of the interview conducted by Officer Santo Tomas.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Fields}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 294 N.W.2d at 408 (holding that interview by police offi
cer was not custodial interrogation where defendant was not taken to the hospital by police, but was at hospital as a result of medical advice, was interviewed by the officer as part of the accident investigation and in the presence of a friend and a nurs
e).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Brunner}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 507 P.2d 233 (holding defendant was not in custody where trooper did not restrain, or order medical personnel to restrain defendant in any way, did not control the atmosphere}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
and remained in view of others who were not police officers).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Hoskins}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 193 N.W.2d 802 (holding that interrogation was not custodial where defendant was confined in hospital under police protection for his own safety, the officer was performing routine investigative procedure, and no compelling atmosphere or pressure was 
exerted on him).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Wofford}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 952 S.W.2d 646 (holding that the defendant was not in custody where she was not escorted to hospital by police, she was not restrained or threatened with weapons, only one officer asked questions, questions were not hostile, and 
hospital personnel were in and out of the hospital room).
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [16]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In light of our holding that Muritok was not in custody, we now turn to the relevant case law with respect to the use of a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s pre-custodial silence by the People.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 In }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Jenkins v. Anderson}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , the defendant took the stand and the prosecutor made reference to the defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s failure to speak before he was taken into custody and given his }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Miranda}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  warnings.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Jenkins v. Anderson}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 447 U.S. 231, 240, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 2130 (1980).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
The Court held that the use of pre-custodial silence to impeach the credibility of a defendant does not violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 impeachment follows the defendant's own decision to cast aside his cloak of silence and advances the truth\_finding function of the criminal trial.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Jenkins}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 447 U.S. at 238, 100 S.Ct. at 2129.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [17]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab However, the }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Jenkins}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 Court declined to address whether, or to what extent, pre-custodial silence is protected under the Fifth Amendment, insofar as its use as substantive evidence of guilt is concerned, including whether, as in the present situation, the }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Jenkins}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  rationale applies to a defendant who chooses not to take the stand.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See id.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 at 236 n.2. The circuit courts are divided on this issue.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The Ninth Circuit allows a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence to be used and holds, with respect to the use of pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [n]either due process, fundamental fairness, nor a
ny more explicit right contained in the Constitution is violated by the admission of the silence of a person, not in custody or under indictment, in the face of accusations of criminal behavior.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
United States. v. Oplinger}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 150 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 1998) (}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 quoting}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Giese}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 597 F.2d 1170, 1197 (9th Cir.), }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 cert. denied}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 444 U.S. 979 (1979).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits similarly hold.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See United States v. Zanabria,}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  74 F.3d 590, 593 (5th Cir. 1996); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
United States v. Rivera,}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  944 F.2d 1563, 1568 (11th Cir.1991).
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [18]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In contrast, a majority of the circuits, including the First, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits, holds that the introduction of a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s pre-custodial silence as substantive evidence of guilt violates the Fifth Amendment.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Coppola v. Powell}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 878 F.2d 1562, 1568 (1st Cir.), }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 cert. denied}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 493 U.S. 969, 110 S.Ct. 418 (1989); }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Combs v. Coyle}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 205 F.3d 269, 283 (6th Cir.), }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 cert. denied}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Bagley v. Combs}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 531 U.S. 1035 (2000); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States ex rel. Savory v. Lane}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 832 F.2d 1011, 1017-18 (7th Cir. 1987); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 but cf.}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Davenport}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 929 F.2d 1169 (7th Cir. 1991); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Burson}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 952 F.2d 1196, 1201 (10th Cir.), }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 cert. denied}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 502 U.S. 1031 (1991).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
The Second Circuit has also expressed some agreement with this position. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See United States v. Caro}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 637 F.2d 869, 876 (2nd Cir. 1981).
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [19]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Because the United States Supreme Court has not ruled on whether a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s pre-custodial silence may be used as substantive evidence of guilt, we look to other United States Supreme Court decisions addressing self-incrimination issues for guidance.}{\insrsid5453469 
 }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Hoffman v. United States}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 (1951). No special combination of words are required to invoke the privilege.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Quinn v. United States}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 349 U.S. 155, 162, 75 S.Ct. 668, 673 (1955).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Furthermore, the privilege can be asserted in any investigatory or adjudicatory proceeding. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Kastigar v. United States}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 406 U.S. 441, 444, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1656, 32}{\insrsid5453469  }
{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 (1972).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 However, the Supreme Court has firmly held that when a defendant chooses to take the witness stand, the prosecution may comment on the defendant's silence.}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Fletcher v. Weir}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 455 U.S. 603, 607 (1982) (asserting that due proce
ss is not violated when a state cross-examines a defendant as to postarrest silence when defendant chooses to take witness stand); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Raffel v. United States}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 271 U.S. 494, 496-97 (1926) (stating that when a defendant testifies, he waives privilege against self-incrimination); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Fitzpatrick v. United States}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 178 U.S. 304, 315 (1900) (holding that defendants who voluntarily testify cannot refuse to answer questions on cross-examination if the questions are reasonably related to subject matter of direct examination).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [20]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab The United States Supreme Court precedent requires that we distinguish between impeachment and substantive use of pre-custodial silence.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 First, when a defendant takes the stand, use of the defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s
 prior silence for impeachment addresses perjury concerns that do not come into play when a defendant does not take the stand.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Harris v. New York}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) (where the Supreme Court acknowledged that although statements would be inadmissible in the prosecutor's case-in-chief, the prosecutor could use the statements for impeachment). The }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Harris}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  Court explained, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
[e]very criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Id.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  at 225, 91 S.Ct. at 645.
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [21]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Second, the use of a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence for imp
eachment has historically been justified on the ground that when a defendant chooses to testify, he or she waives the privilege against self- incrimination and cannot subsequently reassert the privilege in the face of questioning by the prosecutor. }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Raffel}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 271 U.S. at 497, 46 S.Ct. at 568.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The safeguards against self-incrimination are for the benefit of those who do not wish to become witnesses in their own behalf and not for those who do.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Id.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  at 499.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The Supreme Court reaffirmed its }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Raffel}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  holding in }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Jenkins}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 .}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Jenkins}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 447 U.S. at 235-36, 100 S.Ct. at 2127-28.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [22]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In sum, if a defendant such as Muritok chooses not to testify at his own trial, he cannot be deemed to have waived his Fifth Amendment privilege, and thus the }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Raffel}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  justification for impeachment use does not apply. Indeed, the }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Raffel}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 Court suggested that if the defendant had not testified at his second trial, his silence at his first trial would not have been admissible.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Raffel}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 271 U.S. at 497, 46 S.Ct. at 568}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 (}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
[w]e may concede, without deciding, that, if the defendant had not taken the stand on the second trial, evidence that he had claimed the same immunity on the first trial would be probative of no fact in issue, and would be inadmissible.}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 ).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [23]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Application of the above principles to the issues before us leads us to agree with the majority of the circuit courts.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
We therefore conclude that the introduction of a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s pre-custodial}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 silence as substantive evidence of guilt violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Caro}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 637 F.2d at 876 (
}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 we are not confident that }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Jenkins}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 permits even evidence that a suspect remained silent before he was arrested or taken into custody to be used in the Government's case in chief.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 ); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Combs}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 205 F.3d at 283 (holding that Fifth Amendment applies whenever an individual}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s comments could produce incriminating evidence, regardless of whether it is a pre-arrest or post-arrest setting);}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Burson}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 952 F.2d at 1201 (holding that pre-arrest silence is inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment and principles of }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Griffin v. California}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 380 U.S. 609 (1965), that no inference of guilt can be drawn from an accused's failure to take the stand at trial).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 We find that the evidence of Muritok}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s silence in response to questioning by Officer Santo Tomas was a violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 This violation requires a reversal of Muritok}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s convictions unless this court concludes that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See United States v. Hasting}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  (1983) 461 U.S. 499, 507-509, 103 S.Ct. 1974; }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Chapman v. California}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 86 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967). 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 1.\tab Harmless Error Analysis}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [24]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab  To determine whether improper testimony regarding a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence is harmless, three factors are considered: }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
(1) the extent of the comments made; (2) whether an inference of guilt from silence was stressed to the jury; (3) the extent of other evidence suggesting the defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s guilt.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Pino-Noriega}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 189 F.3d 1089, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [25]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab The testimony regarding Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence is as follows:}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid5453469\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Q.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [by the People] 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-22\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 What did you observe in the }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  Well, let}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s focus on the male, the male adult.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Okay, when you went to the Trauma Room and saw the male adult, tell us about your observations.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 A. [Officer Santo Tomas] 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4853973 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
When I got there he was being attended to or people were coming in and going out of the Trauma Room, attending to him. I started to ask him questions.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 On his }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  When I first approached him, I could detect an extremely strong odor of alcoholic beverage.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 I asked him if he had been drinking.}{\i\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 He refused to answer that question.}{\i\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
I asked him if he were willing to provide blood for the purpose of determining alcohol percentage.}{\i\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 He again refused to answer.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
It was at that time that I asked him as to what his son}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 name was.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 He was identified as }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Frankie.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 . . .}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 . . . }{\insrsid4479764 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [Mr. Van De Veld]:}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4853973 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Your Honor, at this time I}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 d like the court to advise the jury that the defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s refusal to answer certain questions is within his right under the Fifth Amendment privilege of the Constitution of the United States and that they are to draw no inference from his refusal to provide answers to those questions.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [The Court]:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4853973 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 I think Counsel just told them; okay?}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript,}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 vol. II of VI, pp. 108-10 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [26]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Turning to the harmless error analysis, the court finds that the reference to Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence by Officer Santo Tomas was not extensive.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Defense counsel requested a curative instruction from the court }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 that the defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s refusal to answer certain questions is within his right under the Fifth Amendment privilege of the Constitution of the United States and that they are to draw no inference from his refusal to provide answers to those questions.}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript,}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
vol. II of VI, pp. 110 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Although the trial court arguably ratified defense counsel}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s statement of the law by his response, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
I think Counsel just told them; okay?,}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 the court should have properly charged the jury pursuant to its clear }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
duty to instruct the jury in a criminal case on the applicable law.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  Transcript,}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 vol. II of VI, pp. 108-10 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. McGill}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 604 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1979).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Notwithstanding the judge}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s duty to instruct on the law, Muritok}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s trial counsel }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 bore primary responsibility for ensuring that the error was cured in the manner most advantageous to his client,}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  including making a timely objection, moving to strike the testimony or requesting a special jury instruction at the close of the evidence.}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Greer v. Miller}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 483 U.S. 756, 766 n.8, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 3109 n.8 (1
987). Despite the failures of both the court and trial counsel to adequately remedy the erroneous reference to Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence, we find that such reference was not extensive.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Moreover, Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence was not stressed to the jury.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The trial transcript portion quoted above was the only reference made to Muritok}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [27]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Finally, there is overwhelming evidence of Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s guilt.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Superior Court Marshals Cruz and Naputi witnessed the van run off the road and }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 crash into a political sign, then hit a telephone}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 pole.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript,}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 vol. I of VI, p. 30 (Trial, Dec. 26, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Marshal Cruz saw the driver of the van }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 fly out of the car}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , make contact with the telephone pole, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 then fly back into his seat.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript, vol. I of VI, p. 30 (Trial, Dec. 26, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The van began to roll backwards down a steep hill and Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s son was ejected from the van and saved by the marshals.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. I of VI, pp. 31-32 (Trial, Dec. 26, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The marshals checked the driver and child for injuries. Transcript, vol. I of VI, pp. 32, 155 (Trial, Dec. 26, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Marshal Cruz detected an odor of alcohol upon examining the driver.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript, vol. I of VI, p. 33 (Trial, Dec. 26, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 According to Marshals Cruz and Naputi, there was no other person in the van.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript,}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 vol. I 
of VI, pp. 28, 149 (Trial, Dec. 26, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Officer Delfin confiscated an open can of beer from the interior of the van.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. II of VI, p. 60 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001). The driver and child were transported by ambulance and medical personnel to the hospital for treatment.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. II of VI, p. 75 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Officer Santo Tomas arrived at the scene and was dispatched to the hospital, where he was directed to Muritok, whom he interviewed, as discussed }
{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 supra}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 . Transcript, vol. I
I of VI, pp. 108-10 (Trial, Dec. 27, 2001). Almia Fernandez, the hospital medical lab technician, drew blood from Muritok and turned it over to the lab for analysis.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. III of VI, p. 15 (Trial, Dec. 28, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Bernie Solidum, the hospital lab technologist, performed the blood-alcohol test on a sample of Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s blood.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. III of VI, p. 51 (Trial, Dec. 28, 2001). Dr. Aurelio Espinola extrapolated the blood-alcohol test results and determined that Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s blood-alcohol quotient was .295, more than three times above the legal limit.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript, vol. III of VI, pp. 71-72 (Trial, Dec. 28, 2001).
}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [28]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In light of the minimal extent of the reference to Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence, the fact that such silence was not stressed to the jury, and the overwhelming evidence of Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s guilt, we hold that the erroneous comment regarding Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s silence and the court}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s failure to properly instruct the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Hasting}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 461 U.S. at 507-09, 103 S.Ct. at 1979-81; }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Chapman, }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 386 U.S. at 23-26, 87 S.Ct. at 827-29.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 2.}{\b\insrsid5453469  }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Alibi Defense}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [29]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In seeking reversal of his conviction, Muritok also asserts that the reference to his silence was an impermissible attack on his alibi defense.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 We disagree.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Muritok relies on case law which holds that attacks on a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s failure to previously disclose an alibi defense are }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 so flagrant a violation of defendant's right to remain silent that [the] conviction cannot stand.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 New Jersey v. Aceta}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 537 A.2d 1317, 1321 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 However, Muritok}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s argument, and logically, the line of cases cited in support of his argument, are inapplicable to any and all versions of the facts as they exist in the trial record before us.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The definition of an }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 alibi defense}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  is unambiguous and widely recognized: An alibi is }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [a] defense based on the physical impossibility of a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s guilt by placing the defendant in a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  
}{\scaps\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Black}{\scaps\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\scaps\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s Law Dictionary}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  72 (7th Ed. 1979)}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
An alibi defense denies that defendant committed the charged offense by reason of having been somewhere other than the scene of the crime when the crime occurred.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\scaps\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Moore}{\scaps\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\scaps\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s Federal Practice}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 3rd Ed., }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 612.1.02[2].}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See also}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 21 }{\scaps\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Am. Jur.2d}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Criminal Law}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 192 (1981);}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 United States v. Chambers}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 922 F.2d 228, 240 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that the trial court committed no error in refusing the requested alibi defense instruction when defendant did not claim he was not at the scene of the crime and stating that }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [a]n alibi defense precludes the defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s guilt by placing him, when the offense occurred, at a location different from that at which he allegedly committed the crime.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 ) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [30]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In sum, the record shows that Muritok presented no evidence or argument that Muritok was,}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
at the relevant time, somewhere other than the scene of the crime.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 We find that Muritok does not have an alibi defense and his claim of error in this respect is without any merit.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 B.\tab Admission of Blood Alcohol Test Results }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [31]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab The second issue we address is whether the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s blood alcohol test results.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Mur
itok argues that the trial court erred when it allowed the evidence based on a particular exception to the hearsay rule; that he was not advised of his }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Miranda}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 rights at the time of interrogation; and that the People failed to prove compliance with the Implied Consent Law.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 1.}{\b\insrsid5453469  }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Hearsay exception}{\b\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [32]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab 
Muritok argues that the lower court improperly admitted the blood-alcohol test results under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule, found in Rule 803(4) of the Guam Rules of Evidence.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  803(4)(1994).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 We review the trial court}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion, which will not be reversed absent prejudice affecting the verdict.}{\i\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 People v. Fisher}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 2001 Guam 2, }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  7. }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [A]buse of discretion exists when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake has been made regarding admission of evidence.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 People v. Santos}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 2003 Guam 1, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  29 n.6.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [33]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Rule 803(4) excepts from the hearsay rule, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [s]tatements 
for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or 
treatment.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  6 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  803(4).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Muritok contends that the blood alcohol test was not performed for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment because the test was not ordered by his treating physician, Dr. Ramahni, but was ordered by the emergency}{\insrsid4853973 
 room physician, Dr. Nordensjo.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [34]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In the People}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s attempt to lay the proper foundation in order to avail itself of the Rule 803(4) hearsay exception, the hospital lab technician, Bernie Solidum, testified that when a doctor orders a test, it is usually for medical care.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Transcript, vol. III of VI, p. 53 (Trial, Dec. 28, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Although defense counsel}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 voir dire}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 examination revealed that Bernie Solidum had no knowledge of whether or not the blood draw was in furtherance of Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s medical treatment, he did not think there was any other reason an emergency room doctor would request for a blood sample other than for purposes of medical care.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. III of VI, p. 56 (Trial, Dec. 28, 2001).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Finally, in response to defense counsel}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s continued objection and distinction between the ordering physician and the treating physician, the lower court conducted }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 voir dire}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  examination of Mr. Solidum, who then testified that in an emergency room setting, it is common to have more than one doctor treating a patient.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. III of VI, p. 66 (Trial, Dec. 28, 2001).}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-709\li709\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin709\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [35]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab 
Upon review of the trial transcripts, we hold that the trial court properly determined that the foundation for the hearsay exception was adequately established by the People, specifically, that the blood-alcohol tests were performed for medical treatment.
}{\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
  Upon the admission of the evidence of the blood alcohol results, the lower court did not expressly indicate that it 
was doing so based on the Rule 803(4) exception to the hearsay rule although the objections which preceded the admission centered on the foundation  necessary to employ Rule 803(4).  However, the court earlier alluded to the admission of the blood-alcohol
 evidence pursuant to Rule 803(6), the }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 records of regularly conducted activity}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  exception to the hearsay rule.  Transcript, vol. II of VI, p.103.  Case law in jurisdict
ions which interpret the federal counterpart of Rule 803(6) or a similar rule hold that blood alcohol test results from blood samples taken from defendants while in the hospital are admissible under this exception to the hearsay rule. }{
\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 See, e.g., Baber v. State}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 , 738 So. 2d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999);  }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Harkins v. State}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 , 735 So. 2d 317 (Miss. 1999).  
\par 
\par 
\par }}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Thus, we find no abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid4853973 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-1440\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 2.\tab Miranda rights}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [36]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Muritok next argues that Officer Santo Tomas}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  failure to advise him of his }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Miranda}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  rights}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
prior to interviewing him and requesting a blood sample rendered the blood alcohol test results inadmissible.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s claim of error, raised for the first time on appeal, is reviewed for plain error.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See People v. Ueki}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 1999 Guam 4, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  17.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [37]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In order to safeguard an accused's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  Miranda}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 requires that an accused be informed of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel before custodial interrogation takes place . }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Miranda v. Arizona}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966);}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 People v. Santos}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 2003 Guam 1, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  45.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [38]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab The privilege protects the accused only from compulsion to give testimony against himself or to provide }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Schmerber v. California,}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  384 U.S. 757, 761, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830 (1966).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The United States Supreme Court held in }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Schmerber}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  that a state-compelled blood test to determine the presence and level of alcohol concentration is physical evidence, not testimony or
 a communicative act, and thus it is not afforded protection by the Fifth Amendment. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See id.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  at 760-65, 86 S.Ct. at 1830-33.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Moreover, in }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 South Dakota v. Neville}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916 (1983), the Supreme Court stated, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
[i]n the context of an arrest for driving while intoxicated, a police inquiry of whether the suspect will take a blood-alcohol test is not an interrogation within the meaning of }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Miranda.}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Id.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  at 56
4 n.15, 103 S.Ct. at 923 n.15.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Therefore, we hold that Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s blood alcohol test results are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and thus, }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Miranda}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  warnings were not required.}
{\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
  With respect to a }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
 claim of error, Muritok only challenges the admission of the blood- alcohol test results and not the interrogation itself.  To be sure, our previous determination that Muritok was not in custody at the time of the intervie
w by Officer Santo Tomas renders the }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  warnings unnecessary at the time of the questioning by Officer Santo Tomas.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 See People v. Santos}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 , 2003 Guam 1, }{
\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  45  (where we held that the ultimate test for determining whether Muritok was }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 in custody}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  which necessitates }{
\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  warnings is whether he was arrested or whether his freedom was restricted so }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid4479764 as to render him }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 in custody.}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 ); }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Berkemer v. McCarty}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3150 (1984). }}}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 3.}{\b\insrsid5453469  }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Implied Consent Law}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [39]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Muritok argues that the trial court improperly admitted the blood test results because Officer Santo Tomas failed to comply with the Implied Consent Law found in Title 16 GCA }
{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  18201(f).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 Title 16 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  18201(f) (amended by Guam Pub. L. 24-127 (May 6, 1998)).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Muritok raises this claim of error for the first time on appeal.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Thus, we review for plain error.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Ueki}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 1999 Guam 4, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4853973  17.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [40]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Section (f) of the Implied Consent Law reads:}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 If a person under arrest}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  refuses to submit to a breath or blood or urine test, none shall be given.}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The person shall be warned, however, that his or her failure to be tested may be used in evidence against him or her in any charge arising from the arrest.}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par 16 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  18201(f)}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
(amended by Guam Pub. L. 24-127 (May 6, 1998)) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [41]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. . . .}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  20.10 (1993).}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Officer Santo Tomas asked Muritok during his pre-custodial interview at the hospital if he was willing to provide a blood sample and Muritok refused to answer.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Transcript, vol. II of VI, p. 109.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Because Muritok was not under arrest, Officer Santo Tomas}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  request of Muritok did not implicate the Implied Consent Law.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 For this reason, he was not required to warn Muritok that his }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 failure to be tested may be used in evidence against him . . . .}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 16 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
18201(f) (amended by Guam Pub. L. 24-127 (May 6, 1998)). As previously held, the blood sample and blood alcohol analysis were performed for medical treatment purposes and were admissible under the Rule 803(4) exception to the hearsay rule.}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The lower court committed no error in ad}{\insrsid4853973 mitting the blood test results.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 C.\tab }{\b\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  and the Extended Terms Statute}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [42]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
s final argument is that the lower court erred in sentencing Muritok to an extended term where the facts which support the extended sentence were not charged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi v. New Jersey}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The issue of a whether the trial court has violated the }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 constitutional rule established in }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  is a question of law that we review }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 de novo}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 .}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Martin}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 278 F.3d 988, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [43]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab The }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Court held that }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 530 U.S. at 490 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  further affirmed that }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
it is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove fro
m the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Id.}{\i\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [44]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Prior to }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , various circuit courts of appeal consistently held that only }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 elements}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  of an offense must be charged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, thus leaving }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 penalty factors}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 in the realm of the sentencing judge}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s discretion to be considered by a mere}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 preponderance of the evidence. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See United States v. Jackson}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 207 F.3d 910, 920-21 (7th Cir. 2000); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
United States v. Thomas}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 204 F.3d 381, 384 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Hester, 199 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2000); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Williams}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 194 F.3d 100, 107 (D.C. Cir. 1999); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Mabry}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 3 F.3d 244, 250 (8th Cir. 1993); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Underwood}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 982 F.2d 426, 429-30 (10th Cir. 1992); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Moreno}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 899 F.2d 465, 472-73 (6th Cir. 1990); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United
 States v. Barnes}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 890 F.2d 545, 551 n.6 (1st Cir. 1989); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Powell}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 886 F.2d 81, 85 (4th Cir. 1989); }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Gibbs}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 813 F.2d 596, 599-600 (3d Cir. 1987); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Morgan}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 835 F.2d 79, 81 (5th Cir. 1987); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Normandeau}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 800 F.2d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1986).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 This logic has been rejected by }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  and thus it makes no difference whether facts are construed as }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 elements}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  or as }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 sentencing factors.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 530 at 485-86, 120 S.Ct. at 236-61.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
If the fact increases the maximum penalty allowable upon conviction, then it must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See id.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [45]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab In this case, Muritok was convicted of, }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 inter alia}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol Causing Bodily Injuries (As a 3rd Degree Felony) and Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol With a Child on Board (As a 3rd Degree Felony).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Each of these third degree felony convictions carries a five year maximum allowable sentence of imprisonment.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  80.30(c) (1996).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Muritok, however, received an extended sentence term of ten years}{
\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
  Muritok was sentenced to ten years (three years suspended) for each of the two convictions, however, the second sentence runs concurrently with the first.  }}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  for each of the two convictions, pursuant to Title 9 GCA }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  80.32(c) and 80.38.}
{\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 Title 9 GCA }{
\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  80.32(c) states, }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid4479764 [i]n the cases designated in }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid4479764  80.38 and 80.42, a person who has been convicted . . . . of a felony of the third degree, the court may impose a sentence of not less than three (3) years and not more than ten (10) years.}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764   Title 9 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  80.32(c) (1996).

\par 
\par Section 80.38, which addresses the extended term sentence for felony convictions, reads in full: 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4479764 
The court may sentence a person who has been convicted of a felony to an extended term of imprisonment if it finds one or more of the grounds specified in this Section. The finding of the court shall be incorporated in the record:
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4479764 (a)The o
ffender is a persistent offender whose commitment for an extended term is necessary for protection of the public. The court shall not make such a finding unless the offender is over twenty-one (21) years of age and has previously been convicted as an adul
t of two (2) felonies or of one (1) felony and two (2) misdemeanors.
\par (b) The offender is a multiple offender whose criminality was so extensive that a sentence of imprisonment for an extended term is warranted. The court shall not make such a finding unless:
\par }\pard \qj \li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4479764 
(1) the offender is being sentenced for two (2) or more felonies, or is already under sentence of imprisonment for felony, or admits in open court the commission of one or more other felonies and asks that they be taken into account when he is sentenced;
 and
\par (2) the longest sentences of imprisonment authorized for each of the offender's crimes, including admitted crimes taken into account, if made to run consecutively, would exceed in length the maximum of the extended term imposed.
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4479764 
(c) The offender is a dangerous, mentally abnormal person whose commitment for an extended term is necessary for protection of the public. The court shall not make such a finding unless the offender has been subjected to a psychiatric examination resultin
g
 in the conclusions that his mental condition is gravely abnormal; that his criminal conduct has been characterized by a pattern of repetitive or compulsive behavior or by persistent aggressive behavior with heedless indifference to consequences; and that
 such condition makes him a serious danger to others.  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4479764 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4479764 Title 9 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  80.38 (1996).}}}{
\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Therefore, the five year maximum allowable prison term for each of the two felony convictions, found in section 80.30(c), was 
exceeded through the application of the extended terms statute for felonies found in section 80.38, and thus falls within the confines of an }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  analysis.
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [46]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Applying the }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  doctrine to section 80.38, an examination of the statutory language r
eveals that the court is authorized to sentence a defendant to an extended term, after the court itself makes various findings specified in the statute. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  9 GCA }{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  80.38 (1996) (}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The court}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  may sentence a person who has been convicted of a felony to an extended term of imprisonment }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
if it finds one or more of the grounds}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  specified in this Section. The }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 finding of the court}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  shall be incorporated in the record.}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 ) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Moreover, the only fact found in the statute that is excepted from }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  is found in subsection (a), which refers to a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s previous conviction }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 as an adult of two (2) felonies or of one (1) felony and two (2) misdemeanors.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5453469  }{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Id.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The remainder of the }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 facts}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 in the statute, however, must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in compliance with }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 .}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See id}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 .}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [47]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Therefore, we hold that Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  80.38 is unconstitutional and a violation of the rule expressed in }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 because it impliedly removes from the jury and prescribes to the court the duty to }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
assess[] [the] facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. at 2364 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
We recognize that the enactment of section 80.38 reflects the legislative policy that certain factors weigh in favor of increasing a defendant}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. However, in the wake of }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , the manner in which the Legislature ha
s implemented this policy is now constitutionally infirm.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764   Justice Thomas, concurring with the Majority in }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Apprendi}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
, suggested that trial courts may bifurcate trials to keep juries from learning of aggravating facts until after a conviction on the underlying offense. }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Apprendi}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
, 530 U.S. at 521 n.10, 120 S.Ct. at 2379 n.10 (citation omitted) (Thomas, J., concurring).  We adopt this procedure for sentencing schemes that fall within the realm of }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Apprendi}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
.  Thus, only if a jury convicts a defendant of the unde
rlying offense should the same jury be reconvened for the second stage of the trial, at which the People must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt any fact, except the fact of a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the pr
escribed statutory maximum.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  at 490. However, this procedure cannot be followed with respect to section 80.38, which, for the reasons discussed in this Opinion, is unconstitutional.  }}}{\insrsid5453469 
 }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 The ability to correct section 80.38, which embraces this legislative policy, lies with the Guam Legislature, not this court, as we have no authority in that regard.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
See Carlson v. GTA}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 2002 Guam 15, }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 46 n.7 (recognizing that policy arguments are more properly directed to the legislature, as }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
[c]ourts are not in the business of judicial legislation.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4853973 ).}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [48]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Muritok also contends that }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 requires the People to charge in 
the indictment any fact which increases the statutory maximum penalty for the offense.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 We disagree.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 In }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , the Court recognized that the appellant did not assert a constitutional claim based on failure to charge the sentencing enhancement facts in
 the indictment, but instead relied entirely on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus declined to address the indictment question, finding that the Fourteenth Amendment }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 has not . . . been construed to include the Fifth Amendment right to }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  See}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 530 U.S. at 476-77 n.3, 120 S.Ct. at 2355-56 n.3 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Therefore,}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s logic, but not its holding, requires federal indictments to charge all facts that raise
 maximum sentences.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See id.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
This rule does not bind state courts, nor does it bind this court, because the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to states. }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 See Alexander v. Louisiana}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 405 U.S. 625, 633 (1972) (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires fair trial but does not require state indictment by grand jury); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Fields v. Soloff}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 920 F.2d 1114, 1118 (2d Cir. 1990) (Fifth Amendment right to grand jury does not apply to states because it is not incorporated by Fourteenth Amendment); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 United States v. Floresca}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 38 F.3d 706, 709 (4th Cir. 1994) (The Grand Jury Clause is one of few Bill of Rights protections which does not apply to states); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Wilkerson v. Whitley}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 28 F.3d 498, 502-03 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause does not require state grand jury indictment)}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 ; Lucas v. O'Dea}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 179 F.3d 412, 417 (6th Cir. 1999) (the right to be charged by indictment is a federal right and does not apply to states); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Cooksey v. Delo}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , 94 F.3d 1214, 1217 (8th Cir. 1996) (Fou
rteenth Amendment Due Process Clause does not require indictment for state prosecution because Fifth Amendment is not incorporated);}{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  Jeffries v. Blodgett}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 5 F.3d 1180, 1188 (9th Cir. 1993) (indictment by grand jury not part of due process guarantees of Fourteenth Amendment that apply to state defendants); }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Clanton v. Cooper}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
, 129 F.3d 1147, 1155 (10th Cir. 1997) (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause does not incorporate the Fifth Amendment right to grand jury indictment with respect to state prosecutions). We hold that, unless otherwise required by law,}{
\cs15\super\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid4479764 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid4479764    }{
\i\fs20\insrsid4479764 See e.g.,}{\fs20\insrsid4479764  Title 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid4479764 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4479764 
 55.40 (discussing the charge of a prior conviction, when such conviction  changes the punishment which can be imposed upon a defendant). }}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  the penalty enhancing facts which fall within the}{
\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  rule need not be charged in the indictment.}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }{\insrsid4853973\charrsid5453469 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [49]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab Accordingly, because Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  80.38 is unconstitutional, we hold that the lower court erred i
n sentencing Muritok to an extended term pursuant to section 80.38, which increases the statutory maximum found in section 80.30(c), without the People first submitting and proving to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the facts (other than the fact of a 
prior conviction) }{\insrsid4853973 which support an extended term.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4853973 {\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 IV.}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5453469 {\b\insrsid4853973 
\par }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 [50]}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 \tab We hold that Officer Santo Tomas}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  reference to Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s pre-custodial silence, although a v
iolation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, was harmless error.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 We further hold that the trial court}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s failure to provide a curative instruction to the jury with respect to Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s Fifth Amendment privilege was harmless error.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Additionally, we hold that the trial}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
court did not err in admitting the evidence of Muritok}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 s blood alcohol test results.}{\insrsid5453469  }
{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Finally, pursuant to }{\i\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Apprendi}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 , we hold that Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  80.38 is unconstitutional and thus, the lower court erred in sentencing Muritok to an extended term pursuant to section 80.
38, which increases the statutory maximum found in section 80.30(c), without the People first proving to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the facts which support the extended terms.}{\insrsid5453469  }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 Accordingly, we }{
\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 AFFIRM}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  the convictions, }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 VACATE}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469  the sentencing with resp
ect to the charges of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Causing Bodily Injuries and Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol With a Child on Board, and }{\b\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 REMAND}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 for resentencing for these respective offenses within the statutory maximum found in Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4479764\charrsid5453469 
 80.30(c).}{\insrsid4479764 
\par }}