Id. "We review . . . sanctions imposed for violations of discovery orders, for an abuse of discretion." People v. Naich, 2013 Guam 7 ¶ 22. Where a discovery violation occurs, "the court must determine whether the sanction employed to remedy the infraction was appropriate."

[*P10] Constitutional and statutory speedy trial claims are distinct, with different legal standards applicable to each. People v. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 ¶ 19 ("As the People correctly point out, a statutory right to a speedy trial is separate and distinct from a constitutional speedy trial."); see also People v. Naich, 2013 Guam 7 ¶¶ 47-48; Ungacta v. Superior Court (People), 2013 Guam 29 ¶ 28. [*P11] We review a Sixth Amendment constitutional speedy trial claim de novo.

"The length of delay is measured from the point of arrest or indictment until trial." People v. Naich, 2013 Guam 7 ¶ 50. "In evaluating the impact of the length of the delay, the court must consider the conduct of the prosecution and the defense, as well as the nature of the case."

Accordingly, the court does not address any Sixth Amendment issues in this Opinion. See People v. Naich, 2013 Guam 7 P 48 (considering only constitutional speedy trial claim and refusing to consider statutory speedy trial claim that was not "clearly raised"); see also People v. Julian, 2012 Guam 26 P 19 ("[C]onstitutional standards and analysis have no application when the question is whether the defendant has been denied a statutory speedy trial right . . . ." (citation omitted)). Pursuant to Guam's speedy trial statute, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in Subsection (b), the court shall dismiss a criminal action if: . . . (3) The trial of a defendant, who is not in custody at the time of his arraignment, has not commenced within (60) sixty days after his arraignment."

See People v. Cruz, 2016 Guam 15 ¶¶ 16, 18 (reviewing alleged violation of Fifth and Sixth Amendments de novo); People v. Diego, 2013 Guam 15 ¶ 8 ("Evidentiary rulings which infringe on constitutional rights are reviewed de novo." (citation omitted)); People v. Naich, 2013 Guam 7 ¶ 22 ("We review a constitutional speedy trial claim de novo." (citation omitted)); People v. Manila, 2005 Guam 6 ¶ 10 ("The grant of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is reviewed de novo."