Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Flores

34 Citing cases

  1. People v. Roten

    2012 Guam 3 (Guam 2012)   Cited 24 times
    In Roten, we held that the admission of an officer's hearsay testimony was harmless error because it was "essentially identical to that provided by the victim," and "[e]rroneous admission of duplicative or cumulative testimony is less prejudicial than admission of unique testimony."

    That is, "[t]he 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). A harmless error inquiry typically involves analysis of numerous factors, including: (1) the overall strength of the prosecution's case; (2) the prosecutor's conduct with respect to the improperly admitted evidence; (3) the importance of the wrongly admitted evidence; and (4) whether such evidence was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence.

  2. Hemlani v. Hemlani

    2015 Guam 16 (Guam 2015)   Cited 15 times

    We have, on multiple occasions, applied this principle in refusing to address superfluous issues where a case has been reversed and remanded for further proceedings on other grounds. See Gutierrez v. Guam Power Auth., 2013 Guam 1 ¶ 64 (citing Cepeda v. Gov't of Guam, 2005 Guam 11 ¶ 51); People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 85. This court has already determined above, see section IV.A.1, that Rekha did not present sufficient evidence to state a prima facie case for summary judgment.

  3. People v. Torres

    2014 WL 1711583 (Guam 2014)   Cited 11 times
    In Torres we held that the age of the prior act in and of itself does not bar admissibility of the evidence, citing cases in which courts have upheld admission of evidence of acts several years old.

    A trial court's denial of a statutory speedy trial claim is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9. We also review the trial court's admission of prior bad acts under GRE 404(b) for abuse of discretion.

  4. People v. Kitano

    2011 Guam 11 (Guam 2011)   Cited 10 times
    In Kitano, the People provided certain discovery material, including Laxamana notes, only nine days before the start of trial.

    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)).

  5. People v. Meseral

    2014 Guam 13 (Guam 2014)   Cited 9 times

    "[T]he 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. Roten, 2012 Guam 3 ¶ 41 (quoting People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 112) (internal quotation marks omitted). We find that the improper vouching was harmless error.

  6. People v. Julian

    2012 Guam 26 (Guam 2012)   Cited 8 times

    Rather, good cause is defined through case law and determined by the facts and circumstances of each case. People v. Nicholson, 2007 Guam 9 ¶ 13; People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 32. We have not previously defined good cause in the prompt arraignment context and it is difficult to find truly applicable cases from other jurisdictions because as this court has said, § 60.10 is of unknown origin.

  7. People v. Leslie

    2011 Guam LEXIS 30 (Guam 2011)   Cited 7 times
    In Leslie, we were convinced to affirm the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial in part because "the trial court addressed each argument challenging the credibility of [the victim's] testimony, including those that [the defendant] now makes on appeal."

    The trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9. We review de novo the issue of whether to set aside a conviction based on an inconsistent verdict.

  8. People v. Cruz

    2016 Guam 15 (Guam 2016)   Cited 7 times
    In Cruz, this court held that certain statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument were "improper because they either directly commented on [the defendant's] failure to testify and the implication the jury could draw from that silence, or involved comments only [the defendant] could contradict or refute."

    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

  9. People v. McKinney

    2016 Guam 3 (Guam 2016)   Cited 6 times

    If a defendant preserves his claim by moving for acquittal, the standard of review is de novo. Id. (citing United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 10 ("[C]laims of insufficient evidence are matters of law that are reviewed de novo."). McKinney moved for Judgment for Acquittal at the close of evidence.

  10. People v. Camacho

    2015 Guam 37 (Guam 2015)   Cited 5 times

    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."