Supreme Court of Guam

The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed Tosiuo’s firearm convictions, holding that the People did not have to prove the revolver was presently operable. Under Guam law, a weapon can qualify as a firearm when it was designed to fire by explosive force and has the capability to do so after repair; the evidence about the…

The court held that GWA owns the Plant Property as a matter of law because the 1997 Grant Deed conveyed GovGuam’s present and future interests to GWA, and the deed’s survey-and-map reverter condition did not apply to property already surveyed, registered, and designated for the wastewater plant.

The Supreme Court of Guam reversed the Superior Court's summary denial of Vincent Tedtaotao's post-conviction motion challenging the mandatory life-without-parole sentence imposed for a 1985 aggravated murder committed when he was nineteen.

The court held that testimony about uncharged sexual touching fell within the scope of GRE 404(b) and was inadmissible because the prosecution failed to provide notice after Sablan requested it.

The court affirmed VonSchimpf’s convictions for attempted fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and abuse of an incompetent, concluding that the circumstantial evidence permitted a rational jury to find the elements of both offenses.

The court held that Schacher was not required to retain legal counsel or possess a law license to petition for probate and seek appointment as executor. The probate court abused its discretion by treating Schacher's lack of counsel and law license as proof of incompetence and by finding no substantial evidence of…

The court affirmed the denial of Vargas’s motions to dismiss, holding that retrial was not barred because the jury failed to agree after a reasonable period of deliberation and the record supported the mistrial.

The court affirmed dismissal of Goodwind’s complaint because the four-year limitations period for the demand notes began when they were issued, the notes’ waivers could not override Guam’s statute-of-limitations policy, and amendment could not cure the time bar.

The court held that the standard established in Maryland v. Craig remains good law and applies to an adult witness’s two-way video testimony. Applying that standard de novo, it concluded that the prosecution made the required case-specific showing that Dr.

The court affirmed Martinez’s convictions without prejudice because the trial record did not show whether she objected to, or consented to, counsel’s concessions of guilt, so the court could not decide her McCoy claim on direct appeal.

The court affirmed Simmons’s convictions, holding that the statutory non-corroboration instruction accurately stated Guam law and was not misleading when considered with the instructions as a whole.

The court held on de novo review that the Trust Instrument clearly names the Foundation as the Trust’s sole beneficiary, affirming summary judgment on that issue on an alternative ground without deciding whether collateral estoppel applied.

The court affirmed the two second-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions based on the beach incident and the first-degree conviction based on cunnilingus in the bedroom, finding sufficient evidence and no instructional or evidentiary error.

The court vacated Pinaula’s convictions because the trial court admitted evidence of his pending criminal case and pretrial-release status without explicitly balancing its probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice under Guam Rule of Evidence 403.

The court reversed the summary judgment for ABC and remanded because the trial court confused the merits of the Chos’ contractual entitlement to relief with traditional standing, and did not address all claims raised.

The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action for failure to prosecute. It held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding of inaction and that the court acted within its discretion in weighing the dismissal factors, including the lengthy delay, presumed prejudice, and the…

The Supreme Court of Guam held that a grand jury may investigate possible felonies without receiving a proposed indictment at the outset, and that Guam’s statutes did not clearly abrogate the common-law investigative powers adopted into Guam’s grand jury system.

The court held that Guam’s first-offender sentencing statute imposes mandatory sentencing limits, so a first offender convicted of a first-degree felony may not receive a sentence above the statute’s fifteen-year maximum absent a more specific law.

The court held that the trial court improperly admitted the complainant’s police statement as a prior consistent statement because it was made after the alleged motive to fabricate arose and did not qualify for rehabilitation.

The court affirmed Soram’s convictions, holding that the evidence did not provide a rational basis for a third-degree robbery instruction and that admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements was not clear or obvious error under plain-error review.

The court vacated the $1,000 personal fine because the trial court did not make factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, that Birn’s refusal to disclose was unjustified.

The court held that Towai was in custody when officers encountered him at night, and that his responses to police questioning and his later statement about the lamp were admitted in violation of Miranda; his initial, unsolicited statement was admissible.

The court held that the Superior Court has inherent equitable authority to stay execution of its own judgments, but may not grant a stay based on a pending action in which the judgment debtor is not a party.

The court upheld the special election’s procedural validity, approved the residency and durational requirements for GBA officers, and approved a financial-statement amendment with clarifying modifications.

The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed Kusterbeck’s convictions for one count of first-degree and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. It held that the evidence placed each incident reasonably near the period alleged, that inadmissible hearsay testimony did not satisfy plain-error review because…

The court vacated the orders issued by a judge who was already disqualified from the underlying criminal case, but denied the request to disqualify the presiding judge based on a former Attorney General candidate’s unilateral use of the judge’s name in campaign material.

The court affirmed dismissal of the proposed class action because the employees had not exhausted the applicable grievance process and had not adequately alleged that further review would be futile.

The court affirmed Hosei’s third-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction but reversed his first-degree conviction because the jury instruction on aiding and abetting omitted the required specific-intent element, and the omission satisfied all four prongs of plain-error review.

The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed Riosen’s convictions for three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, concluding that the victim’s testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, allowed a rational jury to find sexual penetration for each count.

The court affirmed Mendiola’s manslaughter conviction, holding that his untimely objection to the closure of voir dire was reviewable only for plain error and did not warrant reversal, while the public access restrictions during trial satisfied the governing closure requirements.

The court held that Public Law 20-134, which broadly criminalized abortion, was impliedly repealed by later Guam laws regulating abortion care and therefore has no force or effect.

The Supreme Court of Guam reversed the probate court’s summary-judgment order, holding that Joaquin’s Guam interlocutory divorce decree restored his capacity to remarry retroactively and that Guam’s restriction on remarriage did not invalidate a marriage contracted in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court of Guam granted Dr. Philips’s petition for interlocutory review, denied PCMH’s cross-petition, and affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Dr. Philips’s motion to dismiss because the Superior Court had subject matter and personal jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion.

The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed Palacios’s murder conviction, concluding that the trial court properly excluded certain alternative-perpetrator evidence under the evidence rule balancing test and that its error in allowing blanket Fifth Amendment invocations was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court reversed the conviction on CSC I Count One because the jury instruction supplied the victim’s birth date even though age was a contested essential element, creating a reasonable probability that the jury did not decide that element for itself.

The court affirmed Moses’s convictions, holding that the evidence permitted a rational jury to find mental anguish sufficient to establish personal injury for First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct.

The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed Bosi’s convictions and the trial court’s decision to reduce his two second-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions to fourth-degree convictions.

The court held that the evidence supported one conviction for each of Charges One through Four, but not multiple convictions for the charged incidents involving K.R.F. at the Yigo house; it vacated the additional convictions and affirmed the remaining convictions.

The court affirmed all four base convictions and three of the four deadly-weapon special-allegation convictions, holding that the evidence supported the jury’s findings on the charged crimes and weapon use.

The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed the denial of the petitioners’ mandamus petition, holding that their claim for promotion was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same underlying facts and had reached final judgment in an earlier proceeding.