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. Rasauo

    2011 Guam 1 (Guam 2011)   Cited 4 times

    We have stated that we review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to dismiss alleging a violation of the statutory speedy trial periods set forth in 8 GCA § 80.60. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9. We have not previously set forth a standard of review for the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss alleging unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, in violation of 8 GCA § 80.70(b).

  2. 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)).

  3. 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.

  4. Rapadas v. Benito

    2011 WL 6937466 (Guam 2011)   Cited 5 times
    In Rapadas, the court reviewed the relevant provisions of the Guam Code Annotated governing registration of amusement devices, namely the Business Privilege Tax Law found at Article 1 of Chapter 26 of Title 11.

    The trial court's denial of a motion for new trial is similarly reviewed for abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 59. Lastly, courts elsewhere review a trial court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to stay enforcement under the abuse of discretion standard of review. Bains v. Moores, 172 Cal. App. 4th 445, 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309, 337 (Ct. App. 2009) (citing Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct., 79 Cal. App. 4th 876, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 505, 513 (Ct. App. 2000) (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review to determine whether the trial court erred in denying party's motion to stay proceedings in light of pending related criminal proceeding.)

  5. 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.

  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 of Guam v. Naich

    2013 Guam 7 (Guam 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Considering only constitutional speedy trial claim and refusing to consider statutory speedy trial claim that was not "clearly raised"

    We review a constitutional speedy trial claim de novo. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 9 (citing People v. Mendiola, 1999 Guam 8 ¶ 22). IV. ANALYSIS

  8. Ungacta v. Superior Court

    2013 Guam 29 (Guam 2013)   Cited 3 times

    Second, the instant case deals with superseding indictments, which differ from reindictments or new indictments in terms of their effect on speedy trial calculations. This court, in People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22, discussed the differences between these events. "A superseding indictment is an indictment filed before the original or underlying indictment is dismissed," whereas a reindictment "is a new indictment . . . filed when the original or underlying indictment or charges are dismissed."

  9. 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.

  10. People v. Guerrero

    2014 WL 2219130 (Guam 2014)

    Subsequently, in People v. Julian, we chose to attribute the court's delay in prompt arraignment to the People. 2012 Guam 26 ¶ 22 (citing People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 32); see also Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 32 (in the speedy trial context, "[d]elay attributable to the fault of the prosecution or improper court administration . . . does not constitute good cause." (emphasis added)).