9 Guam Code Ann. § 25.15
Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree: the cases that interpreted this section
6 citing cases reviewed of 9 in the citation index: 4 interpreted the section (annotated below), 2 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2023-12-26 may not have been reviewed yet.
Have a situation under 9 Guam Code Ann. § 25.15?
These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.
Intent requirement for sexual penetration
Section 25.15 defines a sexual-penetration offense that requires the defendant to engage in sexual penetration with the victim but does not require proof of intent.
PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Benjamin SHYMANOVITZ, Defendant-Appellant · filed 1998-10-14
The sexual penetration charges simply require that the defendant “engage[ •] in sexual penetration with the victim” but do not include any requirement that the defendant act with intent.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Consent as a defense; proof of nonconsent
For a § 25.15(a)(3) charge, proof of the victim’s nonconsent is not an element; consent is a defense, and a consent instruction is required only when supported by evidence.
The People of the Territory of Guam v. Agualo · filed 1991-11-07(a)(3)
Therefore, the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury as to the defense of consent.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Elements of first-degree criminal sexual conduct
Section 25.15 requires sexual penetration plus a listed circumstance, including that the victim is under fourteen, and the penetration element may be established by evidence of bodily intrusion.
People of the Territory of Guam v. Ignacio · filed 1993-11-18
There was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find the elements of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Separate sexual acts constitute separate offenses
Section 25.15(a)(6) treats separate sexual acts during the same encounter as separate offenses, allowing separate convictions even when the acts involve the same victim.
The PEOPLE of the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael J. · filed 1995-10-19(a)(6)
There was no “merger” of these separate offenses. Each was a separate offense against the person of V.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
2 more cases cited this section only in passing
These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.
Which of these rulings fit your facts?
Describe your situation under 9 Guam Code Ann. § 25.15. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace