‘Information charging Mondala with 41 counts is sufficient’

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman has ruled that the information charging former Office of Aging director Rose DLG. Mondala with 41 corruption charges “is sufficient.”

Wiseman said the government submitted a declaration stating that it provided Mondala with 301 pages of pre-trial discovery.

“The court finds that the government met its burden to show that the information provides Mondala with sufficient notice of the charges and allows her to prepare an adequate defense,” the judge said in an order denying Mondala’s motion for a bill of particulars.

A bill of particulars refers to a list of written statements made by a party to a court proceeding, upon demand of the other party. The list of itemizes details of a claim or defense.

Last September, the government charged Mondala with 41 counts: 22 counts of forgery; six counts of misconduct in public office; eight counts of use of public supplies, time, and personnel for campaign activities; two counts of use of public position to obtain benefits for business or social acquaintances; one count of theft of services; one count of theft; and one count of use of office, staff or employees of a public office for personal benefit.

According to the allegations, Mondala used the Aging Office’s funds and materials for the needs of the Covenant Party during the 2009 elections and to build at her house in Kagman.

Mondala, 71, pleaded not guilty.

Last month, Mondala, through the Office of the Public Defender, sought a court order to compel the government to provide her with a written bill of particulars elaborating on the basis of all 41 counts.

Loren A. Sutton is now Mondala’s lawyer after the OPD withdrew as counsel, citing conflict of interest.

Mondala argues that the information does not specify where or what she allegedly did. She claims the government needs to disclose more facts in order to provide her with enough notice to prepare an adequate defense.

In denying the motion, Wiseman said the standard for determining whether an information is sufficient is not “whether it could have been more definite and certain, but whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged.”

First, Wiseman said, the information cites the laws allegedly violated, the date of the action, and the action that constituted the crime.

Second, Wiseman said, Mondala requests information as to the where, when, and with whom of the government’s case against her. However, Wiseman said, there is no requirement that the information be the sole source of information in order to prepare for one’s defense. He said the sufficiency of information is measured in its entire context, including discovery presented to the defendant.