The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . . ." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The substance of the speedy trial right is defined through analysis of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 41. In evaluating a claimed speedy trial violation, this court employs the four-part balancing test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972).

This court reviews the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on purported discovery violations for abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 59 (citing United States v. Brandao, 539 F.3d 44, 64 (1st Cir. 2008)). The trial court's legal conclusions regarding alleged Brady violations are reviewed de novo.

Whether a Brady violation warrants a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 59 (quoting State v. Wilson, 200 P.3d 1283, 1292 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008)).

We review the denial of a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion. See People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9 (citing Caston v. State, 823 So. 2d 473, 492 (Miss. 2002)).

Id. ¶ 41 (citing People v. Kitano, 2011 Guam 11 ¶ 10); see also Quinata, 2010 Guam 17 ¶ 48 ("[Defendant] failed to move for a continuance, thereby undercutting his claim of prejudice based on an inability to hire his own expert. If he felt he was entitled to more time to prepare to rebut the DNA evidence, he should have asked for the alternative remedy of a continuance rather than simply ask for the flat-out exclusion of all DNA evidence."); People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 66 (rejecting claim of prejudice over delayed disclosure of witness in part because "even with the information obtained[,] [defendant] did not request . . . a continuance or additional time to further prepare the defense"). Finally, in reviewing the appropriateness of a discovery sanction, the court may consider any other relevant circumstances.

An alleged violation of the Sixth Amendment is reviewed de novo. United States v. Yazzie, 743 F.3d 1278, 1288 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 227, 190 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2014) (citing United States v. Ivester, 316 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 P 9 (citing People v. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 P 22) (reviewing a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim de novo). IV. ANALYSIS

Claims of insufficient evidence are matters of law reviewed de novo. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 10 (citing People v. Maysho, 2005 Guam 4 ¶ 6; United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 971 n.8 (9th Cir. 2004)). "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, this court inquires as to whether the evidence in the record could reasonably support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

"[C]laims of insufficient evidence are matters of law that are reviewed de novo." People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 10 (citing People v. Maysho, 2005 Guam 4 ¶ 6; United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 971 n.8 (9th Cir. 2004)). "'In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction,' this court inquires as to 'whether the evidence in the record could reasonably support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

"The test for harmless error is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 112 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The People are correct in the assertion that the testimony revealed the fact of felony release to the jury.

"The test for harmless error is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 112 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted).IV. ANALYSIS