People v. Camaddu

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. John

    2016 Guam 41 (Guam 2016)   1 Legal Analyses

    This court applies a de novo standard of review in determining whether the evidence falls within the scope of GRE 404(b). See People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ¶ 9 (citing People v. Torres, 2014 Guam 8 ¶ 18); see also People v. Palisoc, 2002 Guam 9 ¶ 7 (citing United States v. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1993)). We then apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the trial court's admission of prior bad acts that fall within the scope of GRE 404(b) evidence.

  2. People v. Taitano

    2015 Guam 33 (Guam 2015)   Cited 1 times

    This court expressly defined the appropriate standard for evaluating the admission of evidence under GRE 404(b). People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ¶ 12 (citing People v. Torres, 2014 Guam 8). As we explained:

  3. People v. Santos

    2021 Guam 12 (Guam 2021)

    Importantly, a limiting instruction to the jury about evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct alone does not excuse the trial court from conducting a searching inquiry or cure a failure to make such an inquiry. People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ¶ 20. [49] We have considered what constitutes a "searching inquiry" under Chinel.

  4. San Union, Inc. v. Arnold

    2017 WL 4402258 (Guam 2017)

    "Whether a judge should be disqualified from hearing a matter is reviewed for appearance of impropriety." People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ¶ 9 (citing Dizon v. Superior Court of Guam (People), 1998 Guam 3 ¶ 8). "An award of attorney's fees is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion."

  5. People v. Tedtaotao

    2015 Guam LEXIS 41 (Guam 2015)   Cited 2 times

    This court has previously identified the relevant factors for evaluating the admission of evidence under GRE 404(b). People v. Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ¶ 12 (citing People v. Torres,To be admissible under GRE 404(b), the evidence of prior acts and crimes must (1) prove a material element of the crime currently charged; (2) show similarity between past and charged conduct; (3) be based on sufficient evidence; and (4) not be too remote in time.