{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f179\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}} {\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0; \red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\* \cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1008405 \rsid3417733\rsid4986678\rsid9508377\rsid9793511\rsid11414834}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr10\min30}{\version5}{\edmins4}{\nofpages10} {\nofwords3869}{\nofchars22058}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws25876}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1170 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot1008405 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1008405 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1008405 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1008405 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1008405 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\footery1170\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid1008405\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li-720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin720\lin-720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 People v. Superior Court of Guam}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 1998 Guam 24, Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid1008405 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3417733 1}}}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 of 16 \par }\pard \qj \li-720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin-720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 \par }\pard \qj \li-720\ri720\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin-720\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3417733 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid1008405 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid1008405 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li-720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin-720\itap0\pararsid11414834 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid11414834 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin5040\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM,\tab }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab )\tab Supreme Court Case No.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 WRM98-005 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \li3600\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin3600\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 )\tab Superior Court Case No.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 CF0081-96}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li4320\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin4320\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Petitioner,}{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab \tab }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ) \par }\pard \qj \li3600\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin3600\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ) \par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li4320\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin4320\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 vs.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab \tab \tab ) \par }\pard \qj \li3600\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin3600\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ) \par }\pard \qj \fi-5760\li5760\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin5760\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM,\tab }{\insrsid11414834 )}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \li3600\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin3600\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 )\tab }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab OPINION}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \fi-4320\li5760\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin5760\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Respondent,}{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab }{\insrsid11414834 )}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \li3600\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin3600\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ) \par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li4320\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin4320\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 vs.\tab }{\insrsid11414834 \tab \tab }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ) \par }\pard \qj \li3600\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin3600\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ) \par }\pard \qj \fi-4320\li4320\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin4320\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 BEAU BRUNEMAN,\tab }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab ) \par }\pard \qj \li3600\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin3600\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ) \par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li4320\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin4320\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Real Party In Interest. \tab ) \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ______________________________)}{\insrsid11414834 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid3417733 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Filed: November 20, 1998 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Cite as: }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 1998 Guam 24}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid11414834 Petition for Writ of Mandamus}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par Argued and Submitted on November 4, 1998 \par }{\insrsid11414834 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin5040\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\ul\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Appearing for the Petitioner:}{\insrsid11414834 \tab \tab \tab }{\ul\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Appearing for the Real Party in Interest:}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \fi-8640\li8640\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin8640\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Thomas J. Fisher, Esq.\tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid11414834 Rawlen M.T. Mantanona, Esq.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin5040\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Assistant Attorney General\tab \tab \tab Suite 102, First Savings & Loan Bldg. \par Office of the Attorney General\tab \tab 655 S. Marine Drive}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \fi-8640\li8640\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-2160\faauto\rin720\lin8640\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Prosecution Division\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid11414834 Tamuning, Guam 96911}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Bldg. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\insrsid1008405 \par }{\insrsid11414834\charrsid11414834 \par }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS and BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Associate Justices. \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 SIGUENZA, C.J.: \par }{\insrsid11414834\charrsid11414834 \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [1]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab This matter came before the court on a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus wherein the Petitioner sought relief from the trial court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s exclusion of forensic hair comparison evidence in the Superior Court}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 case of }{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People v. Bruneman}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , CF0081-96.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The Superior Court of Guam, Respondent, filed no response to the petition; however, Beau Bruneman, the Real Party in Interest, responded in objection to the petition, asserting the court does not have jurisdiction to issue a wr it in this matter and even if jurisdiction does lie, the evidence should be excluded.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The court, having reviewed the petition and response and hearing oral arguments, made an oral majority ruling granting the peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial court to admit such evidence at trial.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 This opinion memorializes the court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s oral ruling. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 BACKGROUND}{\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [2]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Beau Bruneman, Defendant and Real Party in Interest (hereinafter Bruneman), was indicte d on February 22, 1996 for aggravated murder pursuant to 9 GCA }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 16.30(a)(1) (1993)}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 and first degree criminal sexual conduct, as a first degree felony pursuant to 9 GCA }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 25.15(a)(1) and (b) (1993).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The charges arose from the death of a four-year old girl, who was raped, sodomized and asphyxiated by manual strangulation.}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Crime scene evidence revealed pubic hairs in the victim}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s bed, the trash bag in which she was placed, and in her anal vault.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The hairs were analyzed by the Hair and Fibers Unit of the crime laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The analysis yielded findings that the hairs were found to be inconsistent with those originating from the victim}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s father and consistent with Bruneman.}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The People sought to admit such evidence and accordingly filed a motion in limine.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The sequence of events which occurred in relation to the People}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s motion in limine is unclear.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 However, we can glean from the record and from oral}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 arguments that the following occurred: the People filed a motion in limine on September 29, 1997, a hearing on that motion was held on November 14, 1997 and the matter was taken under advisement, Bruneman filed a motion to exclude the hair evidence on August 13, 1998, a further hearing was held on September 24, 1998.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Jury selection began on October 8, 1998.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 As a result of the September 24, 1998}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 hearing on the issue, the trial court issued a written decision and order on October 13, 1998 excluding the hair comparison evidence.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The People filed with this court an emergency motion to stay the proceedings.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 This court denied the motion based on a lack of jurisdiction to consider the matter on appeal.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The People then brought this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking vacation of the trial courts exclusion of the forensic hair comparison evidence.}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ANALYSIS}{\b\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid9793511\charrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 I.\tab Jurisdiction}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [3]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab This court has jurisdiction over original proceedings for writs pursuant to 7 GCA }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 3107(b), 31202, 31203 and 31401 (1994).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Whether a writ of mandamus should issue in a particular case is reviewed }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 de novo}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 by the court.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications, Inc. v. Superior Court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1996 Guam 6, }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 8.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy employed in extreme situations.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.} {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 10.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Such relief is only used to "confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so." }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The petitioner bears the burden of justifying the issuance of a writ.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People v. Superior Court of Guam (Quint)}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1997 Guam 7, }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 7.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Issuance of a writ is discretionary.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 7 GCA }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 31401.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Acknowledging that writ pra}{\insrsid9793511 ctice is an equitable function, \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 However, it is Bruneman}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}} }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s contention that this court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ in this case pursuant to the statutory mandates of 7 GCA }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 31202 and 31203.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Furthermore, Bruneman seeks to have the court consider California case law as controlling on the issue because the legislative history of section 31202}{\cs15\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1008405 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid1008405 31202. When and by What Court Issued. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 It may be issued by any court, [except a commissioner's court or police court,] to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act whic h the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tr ibunal, corporation, board, or person. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 \par }}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 indicates the statute was adopted from California.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In support of this assertion, Bruneman calls to the court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s attention cases in which appellate courts have deemed California law controlling authority on issues of statutory construction of local laws.}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 See United States v. Johnson}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 181 F.2d 577, 580 (9}{\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 th}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Cir. 1950); }{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Roberto v. Aguon}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 519 F.2d 754, 755 (9}{\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 th}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Cir. 1975).}{\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [4]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Based on this assertion, Bruneman cites the case of}{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People v. Justice Court of Oroville Judicial District, County of Butte}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 185 Cal. App.2d 256, 258-9, 8 Cal. Rptr. 176, 178 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1960), wherein the court held that mandamus relief could not be employed to compel the judge to exclude or admit evidence, even if such decision was erroneous.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The court reasoned that the People are only given the right to appeal in limited situations and to allow a writ to issue where no statutory authority to appeal exists would circumvent th e intent of the legislature and be directly against the policy against allowing the People to appeal in criminal cases.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at 259, 8 Cal. Rptr. at 178.}{ \insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [5]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab However, this court notes several problems with Bruneman}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s arguments.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 First of all, the court has firmly taken the position that it is not bound by decisions of the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam or other Courts of Appeal in interpreting local law.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 See People v. Quenga}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1997 Guam 6, }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 13, n. 4.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Secondly, although the court recognizes the general policy to limit those issues from which the People may appeal in criminal matters, case law supports the issuance of a writ of mandamus in those situations where }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 the trial court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and the need for such review outweighs the risk of harassment of the accused.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \i\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People v. Superior Court of Lassen County}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 24 Cal.3d 622, 626, 596 P.2d 691, 693, 156 Cal. Rptr. 626, 628 (1979); }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 see also People v. Superior Court of Marin County}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 69 Cal.2d 491, 446 P.2d 138, 72 Cal. Rptr. 330 (1968) (In Bank).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 At the time the court in }{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Marin County}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ruled on the issue of jurisdiction in that case, California}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s provision as to when a writ may issue contained language almost identical to section 31202 and the court maintained that in those extre me circumstances, where the court acts beyond its jurisdiction, it was proper for a writ to issue.}{\cs15\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1008405 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 California Civil Procedure Code }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}} {\fs20\insrsid1008405 1085 has since been amended in 1998. }}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Marin County}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 69 Cal.2d at 499-501, 446 P.2d at 144-5, 72 Cal. Rptr. at 336-7.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In any event, the issue in the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Oroville}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 case was mooted with the amendment to California}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s statutes which allowed the People to appeal an order or judgment granting a suppression motion.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 See}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 C}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 A}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 P}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ENAL}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 C}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ODE}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 1238(a)(7) (West 1998).}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Furthermore, the aforementioned case law demonstrates a shift away from strict adherence to the policy against allowing the People to seek review of erroneous decisions by carving out a very narrow exception to that rule.} {\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [6]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Further, this court, in previously issued writs of mandamus, has gone beyond the basic framework of the statute to further define those instances when a writ may issue.}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 See}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1996 Guam 6, }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 11; }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Quint}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1997 Guam 7, }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 8.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The court may issue a writ of mandamus pursuant to section 31203 which provides as follows: }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [t]he writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It must be issued on the verified petition of the party beneficially interested.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 This court has adopted a list of factors, not all encompassing, which not only includes the requirements of section 31203, but also delineates those circumstances under which a writ shall lie.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 See}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1996 Guam 6 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 11; }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Quint}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1997 Guam 7 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 8.}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [7]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Therefore, we determine that this court has jurisdiction to issue the peremptory writ of mandamus in this case. }{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 II.\tab Standard for Issuing a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [8]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Keeping in line with the framework of the statute, the court has previously set out the factors to be considered in determining whether a writ of mandamus shall issue.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1996 Guam 6 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 11; }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Quint}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1997 Guam 7 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 8.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The following factors shall guide the court in exercising its discretion to issue a writ of mandamus:}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 1) Wheth er the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to attain the desired relief; 2) Whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; 3) Whether the court}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; 4) Whether the court}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of rules; and 5) Whether the court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s order raises new and important problems, or issues of law or first impression.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1996 Guam 6, }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 11.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 These factors, however, will not relieve us of our own reasoned and independent analysis of the issues.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Thus, this framework of factors is a starting point in our determination of the propriety of mandamus relief.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\i\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid9793511\charrsid9793511 \par }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Quint}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1997 Guam 7 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 8. (citation omitted).}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [9]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Examining the first two factors, we conclude that these are closely related in this case and both support the issuance of the writ.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The petitioner has already attempted to appeal the matter in }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People v. Superior Court of Guam}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , CRA98-019 which the court summarily dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Additionally, were the petitioner to wait until the close of trial to attempt to appeal this matter, it is not clear that the court would, even at that time, be able to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 See}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 8 GCA }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 130.20 (1993).}{ \cs15\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1008405 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 (a) An appeal may be taken by the government from any of the following: \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 (1) An order granting a new trial. \par (2) An order arresting judgment. \par (3) An order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the government. \par (4) An order modifying the verdict on finding by reducing the degree of the offense or the punishment imposed. \par (5) An order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating the action before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy or where the defendant has waived jeopardy. \par (6) An order granting a motion to suppress evidence. This appeal may be taken prior to trial if the appeal is timely filed pursuant to }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid1008405 130.40 of the Criminal Procedure Code and before the trial has commenced. Upon the timely filing of an appeal pursuant to this Subsection, the Superior Court shall stay all proceedings until the Appellate Court has acted pursuant to }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 130.60 of the Criminal Procedure Code. \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\insrsid1008405 }}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 We have held in }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People v. San Nicolas}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , CRA98-001}{\cs15\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\super\insrsid1008405 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 In the }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 San Nicolas}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 case, this court denied the People}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 s Emergency Motion To Stay the proceedings in the trial court; thereby foreclosing the People of the ability to appeal pursuant to 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 130.20(a)(6) because the judgment appealed from was not a grant of a suppression motion.}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 and in the previous r endition of this case, CRA98-019, that section 130.20 is a jurisdictional statute which will be strictly construed.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Although the People may appeal the granting of a motion to suppress, they are foreclosed from appealing a denial of a motion in limine or a motion to exclude, as they involve evidentiary issues.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Due to the technical nature of the jurisdictional statutes, which is beyond this court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s control, the People are unable to raise these issues on appeal.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 H owever, the Legislature has provided this court with the ability to review, by writ, issues raised by the People not otherwise provided for in section 130.20.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Therefore, the issuance of a writ is proper.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 As to the fourth factor, there is nothing to suggest that this is an oft-repeated error or that the trial court persistently disregards the rules.}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Neither does this situation present a clear problem under the fifth factor, although the issue of the admissibility of forensic hair comparison evidence is novel to this court.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The crux of the analysis, therefore, rests on the third factor}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 whether the trial court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s ruling was clearly erroneous as a matter of law.}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [10]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab In conducting its analysis, the trial court began by applying the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 test for scientific evidence as set forth in the case of }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The United States Supreme Court recognized that the Federal Rules of Evidence require a }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 trial judge [to] ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Thus, }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 created a two-part test for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1008405 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 In assessing whether the scientific evidence or testimony is reliable, the Court in }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Daubert}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 stated that several factors would be relevant, but focused on the follo wing: (1) whether the theory or technique is scientific knowledge that has been tested and, thus, helpful to the trier of fact; (2) whether the technique or theory has been subjected to publication and peer review; (3) the known or potential rate of erro r; and (4) general acceptance within the scientific community. }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 at 593-5, 113 S.Ct at 5796-7}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at 589, 113 S.Ct at 2795.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 However, although a two-part test is to be employed, the threshold issue remains of whether the evidence sought to be admitted is }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 scientific}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 evidence or testimony.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , the Court characterized the word }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 scientific}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 as being grounded }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 in the methods and procedures of science}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 and }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 scientific knowledge}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 as necessitating an inference or assertion which }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 must be derived by scientific method.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at 590, 113 S.Ct. at 2795.}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [11]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Recent case law on the issue has indicated that hair and fiber evidence does not qualify as }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 scientific}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 evidence or knowledge; thus falling outside the scope of the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 test.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 State v. Fukusaku}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 946 P.2d 32 (Haw. 1997).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Fukusaku}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , the defendant raised the issue as to whether the court was required to conduct a pretrial hearing to determine the scientific reliability of hair comparison evidence.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The trial court ruled that hair analysis did not constitute }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 scientific knowledge,}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 but instead fell within the category of }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 technical knowledge,}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 presenting no need for a pretrial hearing or ruling on reliability.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at 43.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Hawaii Supreme Court agreed with this determination holding that }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 expert testimony deals with }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 technical knowledge}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 when it involves the mere technical application of well-establis hed scientific principles and procedures. . . . [I]t is unnecessary to subject technical knowledge to the same type of full-scale reliability determination required for scientific knowledge.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Fukusaku}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 court went on to recognize the widespread acceptance of hair and fiber evidence among the jurisdictions.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The principles and procedures underlying hair and fiber evidence are overwhelmingly accepted as reliable.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 As one treatise notes, }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [t]he cases in which courts have excluded hair evidence are so rare that they have literally amounted to only a handful of precedents. . . .}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In contrast to the few cases excluding hair evidence, a large body of case law reflects the courts}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 receptivity to hair analysis.}{\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [12]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Also, Bruneman and the trial court, rely on the case of }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Williamson v. Reynolds}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 904 F. Supp. 1529 (E.D. Okla. 1995), wherein the district court applied the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 test to hair comparison analysis and determined that such failed to prove scientifically reliable.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Reynolds}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 court went through a lengthy discussion of the history of hair comparison analysis, noting its introduction back in the late eighteen hundreds, and then chose to conduct a }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 analysis in light of its characterization of the evidence as }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 scientific.}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at 1555.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Seemingly, the court made the assumption that hair comparison evidence is scientific evidence or requires scientific knowledge without examining the issue.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Once applying the test, the court determined that hair comparison evidence failed under the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 standard.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at 1558.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 However, it is interesting to note that the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Reynolds}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 court seems to later stumble on the idea that hair comparison evidence is not scientific in nature.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Not even the }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 general acceptance}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 standard is met, since any general acceptance seems to be among hair experts who are generally technicians testifying for the prosecution, not scientists who can objectively evaluate such evidence.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The court makes this determination at the end of its analysis, after applying the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 test.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In doing so, the court begs the question as to whether this evidence classifies as scientific or technical.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Additionally, although }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Reynolds}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 was later affirmed by the Tenth Circuit, it was done so based on grounds oth er than the admissibility of the hair evidence.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Williamson v. Ward}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 110 F.3d 1508, 1510 (10}{\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 th}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Cir. 1997).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In fact, the Tenth Circuit specifically reversed the ruling on the issue of the hair evidence asserting that the court applied the incorrect standar d in making its ruling.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at 1522-23.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Ward}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , the court held that the district court }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 did not perform its analysis under a due process/fundamental fairness standard.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Instead, it incorrectly assessed the issue in evidentiary terms under}{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Because the court employed the wrong standard, we reverse its ruling that the hair analysis was inadmissible.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Id.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 at 1523.}{\cs15\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1008405 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 The fact also remains that the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma has consistently ruled that hair evidence is admissible at trial and continues to do so, even in light of }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Daubert}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 and }{ \i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Reynolds}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 . }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 See Bryan v. State}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 935 P.2d 338, 359 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). The court followed the long-standing policy of admitting hair evidence, thereby disregarding the }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Reynolds}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 court}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 s rejection of the same. }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 Although the }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Reynolds}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 case was addressed, the }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Bryan}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 court determined the decision was not binding on that court and the defendant had offered }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 no other reason to review this }{\b\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 settled area of law}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 .}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 at n. 62. (emphasis added).}{\insrsid1008405 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid1008405 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid1008405 }}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [13]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Finding that the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 test is inapplicable, we now turn to the question of the relevancy and reliability of hair comparison evidence.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The People}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s expert, FBI forensic expert Karen Lanning, testified that the hairs in question were }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 consistent with originating}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 from Bruneman.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Bruneman argues, and the trial court concurred,}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 that identification is an ultimate issue in a rape and murder case.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The trial court framed the issue as }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 whether the methodology used by Ms. Lanning is reliable enough to be used as a means of positive identification}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 and concluded in the negative.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People v. Bruneman}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , CF0081-96 (Decision and Order, October 13, 1998).}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In this respect the trial court was absolutely correct in its determination.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 However, the trial court committed gross error by completely misconstruing the purpose for which the forensic hair comparison evidence was being offered and in what context such is used and accepted.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The identity of the murderer and rapist in this case is an ultimate issue of fact which the jury must decide.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The People merely offer this evidence to indicate that the hairs found are }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 consistent}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 with Bruneman and }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 inconsistent}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 with the victim}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s father.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The trial court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s finding fault with Ms. Lanning}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s testimony that she cannot positively identify the hairs as being those of Bruneman is utterly inexplicable.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Not only was the evidence not offered for this purpose, but for Ms. Lanning, or any other expert, to have attested to the same would have rendered her testimony wholly and uncontrovertedly inadmissible.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 See}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 2 D. Faigman et al., Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 20-9.2.3, n.9 (1997) (asserting that although hair evidence can be found to be consistent with originating from a particular person, stronger opinions would be unsupportable);}{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 State v. Suddreth, }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 412 S.E.2d 126, 132}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (holding that }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [w]hile hair analysis evidence is admissible in criminal cases under a broad scope of relevancy, }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [u]nlike fingerprint evidence, however, comparative microscopy of hair is not accepted as reliable for }{\b\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 positively identifying}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 individuals.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); Miller, Procedural Bias in Forensic Science Examinations of Human Hair, 11 L. & Hum. Behav. 157, 158 (1987);}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Microscopy of Hair:}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 A Practical Guide and Manual 7 (1977).}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [14]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab The jury is free to make the determination as to the weight it will give to the testimony, but}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 admissibility here is not a question.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Furthermore, the trial court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s determination that the probative value of the evidence and testimony would have been outweighed by the prejudicial effect demonstrates a clear disregard for}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 the policies and safeguards considered in 6 GCA }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 403 (1995).}{ \cs15\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1008405 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 Based on FRE 403, the statute reads as follows: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues , or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1008405 }}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Prejudice is not an issue as most evidence presented by the People in a criminal case is prejudicial to a defendant.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 At issue is whether probative value is outweighed by the danger of }{\b\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 unfair prejudice}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 to a defendant.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 There are safeguards readily present and available to a defendant.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 He has the ability to cross-examine the expert w itness and present his own expert witness.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In doing so, Bruneman may focus on the issues which he raises in mistakenly arguing inadmissibility, but which go to the weight of the evidence:}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 the high error rate, the fact that such evidence may not positively and specifically identify the defendant or anyone else, and that the evidence may also be }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 consistent with}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}} }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 a number of other persons.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 An overwhelming number of juri sdictions have upheld the admissibility of the same evidence, many expressly recognizing these same safeguards available to the defendant to satisfy section 403.}{\cs15\super\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1008405 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1008405 A small sampling of case law post-}{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Daubert}{ \fs20\insrsid1008405 include }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 McGregor v. State}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 885 P.2d 1366, 1381 (Okla. 1994); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 State v. Marlow}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 888 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Mo. 1994); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 McCarty v. State}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 904 P.2d 110, 125 (Okla. 1995); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Beam v. State}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 463 S.E.2d 347, 349 (Ga. 1995); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 United States v. Matta-Ballesteros}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 71 F.3d 754, 766-7 (9}{\fs20\super\insrsid1008405 th}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 Cir. 1995); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Bryan v. State}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 935 P.2d 338, 359 (Okla. 1997); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Mollett v. State}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 939 P.2d 1, 8 (Okla. 1997); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Bolin v. State}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 960 P.2d 784, 798-9 (Nev. 1998). Other pre-}{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Daubert}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 cases depict wide acceptance of hair evidence. }{ \i\fs20\insrsid1008405 See State v. Bridges}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 421 S.E.2d 806, 808-9 (N.C. 1992); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 People v. Vettese}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 489 N.W.2d 514, 518-9 (Mich. 1992); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 Williamson v. State}{ \fs20\insrsid1008405 , 812 P.2d 384, 404-5 (Okla. 1991); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 State v. Payne}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 402 S.E.2d 582, 595-6 (N.C. 1991); }{\i\fs20\insrsid1008405 People v. Forsha}{\fs20\insrsid1008405 , 542 N.Y.S.2d 847, 849 (1989).}}}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 CONCLUSION}{\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [15]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab The court reiterates the fact that writs of mandamus are to be reserved for extreme situations.}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1996 Guam 6 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 10.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 As such, petitions for writs shall be reviewed on an }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 ad hoc}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 case by case basis to confine writ practice in this jurisdiction.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Applying the factors set forth in }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 and}{ \i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Quint}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 to the facts of this case, we hold the trial court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s ruling was clearly erroneous in that the court erred in conducting a }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Daubert}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 analysis of the evidence, in finding the People were attempting to use the evidence to prove positive identity, in finding that hair evidence lacks reliability because it cannot prove identity, and in failing to consider that there are strategic safeguar ds to protect the defendant from the possibility of unfair prejudice.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 It appears the trial court}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 acted in a result-oriented manner by seeking out and relying}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 upon a single federal habeas case from a district in Oklahoma, yet failed to recognize that the case relied upon was later overturned on the hair evidence issue.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Moreover, the trial court failed to recognize that the Tenth Circuit, in overruling the district court, held that state law governed admissibility of comparative hair analysis and that Oklahoma has consistently deemed such evidence admissible.}{ \insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [16]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Additionally, the factors set forth in }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 and }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Quint}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 do not confine the court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s discretion in these cases, they are but a guide and do not preclude the court from using its own }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 reasoned and independent analysis of the issues.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Quint}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1997 Guam 7 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 8.}{\insrsid11414834 }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 In addition to the above factors, the court also notes the trial court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s procedural mismanagement of the case, particularly the lengthy delay between the filing of the People}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s motion in limine and the issuance of the decision and order on the matter, which acted to escalate the extraordinary nature of the situation.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Based on the foregoing, it is the determination of the court that a peremptory writ of mandamus shall issue. .}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [17]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Let a Peremptory Writ of Mandate issue, directing the Superior Court to vacate its order of October 13, 1998, in the case of }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People v. Bruneman}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , CF0081-96, and to enter a new and different order granting the admission of forensic hair comparison evidence and testimony at trial.}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 PETER C. SIGUENZA\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 JANET HEALY WEEKS}{\insrsid9793511 \par }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Chief Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab }{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Associate Justice}{\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid9793511 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11414834 {\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid9793511 CRUZ, J., dissenting.}{\b\insrsid9793511\charrsid9793511 \par }{\insrsid9793511 \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [18]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab I am disturbed at the analysis used by the majority in finding that this court has jurisdiction in this case.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Previous decisions of this court have recognized }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [m]anda mus relief as an extraordinary remedy that would be used in extreme situations;}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 yet, the situation presented here does not evince an extreme situation to support the issuance of the writ.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Guam Publications}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1996 Guam 6 at }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 10.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Admittedly this court has held that we are not bound by other courts in interpreting local law.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 See Quenga}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 , 1997 Guam 6 at }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 13, n. 4.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 We, however, should recognize that although }{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [r]ecent case law demonstrates a shift away from strict adherence to the policy against allowing the People to seek review of erroneous decisions}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 such was derived from, as the majority stated, an }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 amendment to California statutes which included a statutory right to appeal for the People of an order or judgment granting a suppression motion.}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [19]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab The People admitted at oral arguments that the lower court decision was not on a motion to suppress, though one could argue that the effect was the same, so the statutory right to appeal the granting of a motion to suppress does not apply.}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Inasmuch as the Legislature has not granted the}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 People a statutory right to appeal a decision on a motion in limine, this court should have followed }{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 the }{\i\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Oroville}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 decision.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [20]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab The majority opinion acknowledges that }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [t]he sequence of events which occurred in relation to the People}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s motion in limine is unclear; however, both parties acknowledge that more than one hearing and more than one motion on the issue were heard, including a motion to exclude said evidence . . . .}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 This matter, having been presented to this court as an emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate, does not require that we be provided with transcripts of the hearing or hearings, the depositions discussed, the various motions in limine or motion to exclude and responsive memoranda to make an informed finding of whether the trial court abused its discretion.}{ \insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [21]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab The majority opinion is based on its determination that the trial court erroneously decided the motion or motions.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The admissibility of hair evidence and DNA evidence has not been previously addressed by this court.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 As such, the trial court had no bright-line directives from this court to make its decision.}{ \insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 Without such direction from this court, the trial court}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s decision, even if clearly erroneous, does not rise to the level of warranting the issuance of a writ in this case.}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [22]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab It is the humble opinion of this lone dissenter that before this court renders an opinion on whether the trial courts of Guam must admit hair sample evidence and testimony, we should have the issue thoroughly briefed.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The briefs filed by both parties are woefully inadequate in this dissenter}{ \insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 s opinion.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 The issues might have b een better briefed in the memoranda filed below, but since no record on appeal or even excerpts of record are required in an emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate, we don}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 t know.}{\insrsid9793511 \par \par }{\b\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 [23]}{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 \tab Writs of mandate should rem ain confined to extreme or extraordinary situations and should not become a standard vehicle by which the People may avoid jurisdictional problems where the Legislature clearly intended otherwise.}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 By issuing a writ in this case, the floodgates have been open to the danger of an influx of cases whereby, although this court would statutorily lack jurisdiction,}{\insrsid11414834 }{\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 the court may be forced to overstep}{ \insrsid9793511 its jurisdictional boundaries. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9793511 {\insrsid1008405\charrsid11414834 BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ \par Associate Justice \par }}