‘AGO met burden in charging man in helmet attack’

The Superior Court yesterday denied a motion to compel the Attorney General’s Office to elaborate the factual basis in the charging information filed against a man accused of slamming a motorcycle helmet on a man’s head outside a nightclub on Tinian.

Associate Judge David A. Wiseman determined that the charging information adequately puts Luis P. Cruz on notice as to what allegedly occurred and sufficiently states facts that constitute a crime.

“Any further information the defendant seeks will be sufficiently revealed through discovery,” said Wiseman in his order denying Cruz’s motion for a bill of particulars.

The judge said the government has given Cruz enough notice of the charges so he could prepare an adequate defense and that “discovery will likely obviate any need for a bill of particulars.”

Police said the victim, Cui Jingzhu, had just stepped out from U-Joy Nite Club when he had an argument with two local men.

One man, later identified as Cruz, allegedly hit Jingzhu with a helmet on the head. The suspect then left aboard a motorcycle.

A surveillance camera at a store in the area caught the attack that led to Cruz’s identification.

In May 2008, the government charged Cruz with one count of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of aggravated assault and battery.

Cruz pleaded not guilty.

Cruz, through counsel Joey P. San Nicolas, argued that the charging information is not specific enough as to the date or time of the alleged incident, that there are no specific facts as to what Cruz allegedly did that constitute a crime.

Wiseman pointed out, though, that the main purpose of a charging information is to provide a defendant notice of the charges that have been filed against him, as well as listing the acts committed that provided the basis for such charges.

“A bill of particulars is not needed if the information itself provides sufficient details of the charges and the government provides full discovery to the defense,” Wiseman said.

In this case, the judge said, by statute, a person is guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon if he threatens to cause, attempts to cause, or purposely causes bodily injury to another with a dangerous weapon.

“The information in this case has provided those required essential facts in its description which specifically lists who was allegedly injured, when and where the assault allegedly took place, and the type of alleged dangerous weapon used in commission of the assault—a ‘helmet,’” Wiseman said.

With respect to the second charge, Wiseman said that, by statute, a person is guilty of aggravated assault and battery if he causes serious bodily injury, purposely, knowingly or recklessly.

“Again, the information has provided those required essential facts in its description, which specifically lists who was allegedly injured, when and where the assault took place, and the alleged serious bodily injury which was caused by the assault—‘severe head injury,’” he said.