{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f170\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f172\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f173\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f174\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f175\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f176\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f177\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\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 \rsid5336599
\rsid9508377\rsid10628165\rsid14447172}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min4}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr8\min34}{\version3}{\edmins4}
{\nofpages18}{\nofwords7960}{\nofchars45372}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws53226}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 
\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\rsidroot14447172 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14447172 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14447172 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14447172 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14447172 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid14447172\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 
People v. Laxamana}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid14447172 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5336599 18}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172  of 30
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid14447172 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5336599 
{\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}}}}{\insrsid14447172 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid14447172 
\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 \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 PEOPLE OF GUAM,
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Petitioner,
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 vs.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM,
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Respondent,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 vs}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 .}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 OLIVER LINTAG LAXAMANA,}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Real Party in Interest.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Supreme Court Case No. WRP01-001
\par Superior Court Case No. CM0302-01}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 OPINION}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid5336599  }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 2001 Guam 26}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Filed:}{\b\insrsid5336599  }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 December 13, 2001}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  }{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on September 18, 2001
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5336599 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }{\ul\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Appearing for the Petitioner}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 :
\par }\pard \ql \fi-2160\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin2160\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 Angela M. Borzachillo}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General
\par Prosecution Division
\par Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Bldg.
\par 120 W. O}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Brien Dr.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam }{\insrsid5336599 96910}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Appearing for the Real Party in Interest}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 :
\par Richard Parker Arens, Esq.
\par Cunliffe & Cook, P.C.
\par Suite 200
\par 210 Archbishop F.C. Flores St.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par 
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5336599 
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 BEFORE:}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice, F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice, and BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Justice }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Pro Tempore}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 .
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par SIGUENZA, C.J.:
\par }{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [1]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab This matter is before the court upon the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s Emergency Petition for Peremptory Writ of Prohibition, Alternative Writ of Mandate and Stay filed July 12, 2001.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Petitioner People of Guam (hereinafter }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ) seeks this court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s review of: (1) the hearing of an }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 motion by a judge that was not the assigned }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 judge for that day; (2) the request by the lower court judge that a specific attorney be present in the courtroom when the People argued its motion; (3) the lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order that the People preserve investigative field notes taken by police officers; and (4) the lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order that the People disclose the preserved field notes to Laxamana.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
After reviewing the petition and response, and after hearing oral arguments, this court will issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the lower court to vacate its order requiring the People to disclose the preserved field notes.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 However, the court declines to grant a peremptory writ of prohibition or alternative writ of mandate with respect to any other conduct by the lower court. This opinion is being issued to further expound this court}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s ruling.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 I.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [2]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Real Party in Interest and Defendant Oliver Lintag Laxamana (hereinafter }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Laxamana}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
) was charged with fourth degree criminal sexual conduct as a misdemeanor and harassment as a petty misdemeanor.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
During the pretrial stages of the case, the People provided Laxamana with seventeen pages of discovery.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 After receiving this discovery, Laxamana}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s attorney filed an }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
motion with the judge assigned the case, seeking an order to preserve witness statements and investigative notes taken by the Office of the Attorney General and the Guam Police Department (hereinafter }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 GPD}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ) during their investigation of Laxamana.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The People were served notice of the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 motion and were represented at the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  hearing by Assistant Attorney General Barbara P. Cepeda (hereinafter }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Cepeda}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ).}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Following the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  hearing, the court ordered that all written statements or investigative notes generated in Laxamana}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s case be preserved for an in-camera review.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
At the request of the People, the court permitted the parties to brief the issue of the discoverability of the field notes.
\par }{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [3]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The People then filed a Motion to Vacate the court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s June 21st order preserving the field notes.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 On July 6, 2001, the motion was heard by the court.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
At this hearing, Assistant Attorney General Leonardo M. Rapadas appeared on behalf of the People.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The court requested the presence of Cepeda to address issues that relied on familiarity with the procedural and factual background of the case.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Transcript vol. --, p. 16 (Hearing on People}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s Motion to Vacate Order or Stay Decision, July 6, 2001).}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Cepeda appeared and argued the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s motion.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled that the field notes were discoverable and ordered that the People submit them to Laxamana.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The People immediately petitioned this court for a peremptory writ of prohibition, alternative writ of mandate, and stay.
\par }{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [4]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab By Order of July 13, 2001, this court denied the P
etition for Peremptory Writ of Prohibition but stayed the July 6th order of the lower court to submit the disputed police field notes to Laxamana pending determination of the Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 After submission of briefs by the Parties, the petition came for hearing before a single justice.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
However, upon reconsideration, a full panel was called and oral arguments reheard on the merits of both writs.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 II.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [5]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab This court maintains original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Title 7 GCA }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  3107(b) (1998).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The issuance of a writ is a drastic remedy and may only be used where there is }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 no plain, speedy, a
nd adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Title 7 GCA }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 31203, 31302 (1998); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Topasna v. Superior Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 1996 Guam 5, }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  5.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Whether the issuance of an extraordinary writ is the appropriate remedy lies in the discretion of the court.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See Gray v. Superior Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 1999 Guam 26, }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  12.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 III.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [6]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The People petitioned this court for both a peremptory writ of prohibition and an alternative writ of mandate.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
With respect to the writ of prohibition, the People allege that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by taking the following actions: (1) entertaining Laxamana}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 motion in violation of Rule 9; and (2) requesting that a particular Assistant Attorney General argue the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s position in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Pursuant to the writ of mandate, the People seek to vacate the lower court}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s June 29th order of preservation and July 6th order of disclosure.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [7]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Extraordinary writs are used by courts to provide a petitioner relief not available in the ordinary course of appeal.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
However, a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandate operate differently.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Mandate l
ies to compel the performance of official duty . . . and prohibition to restrain judicial acts in excess of jurisdiction . . . where there is no adequate legal remedy.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Dix v. Superior Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 807 P.2d 1063, 1066, 53 Cal. 3d 442, 450 (1991).}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 A.\tab Writ of Prohibition
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [8]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The issuance of a writ of prohibition is governed by Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  31301, 31302 (1998).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The st
atutes collectively set forth three requirements for the proper issuance of a writ of prohibition: (1) proceedings without or in excess of a tribunal}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s jurisdiction;}{\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{\insrsid14447172  }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 Defining the phrase }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 lack of jurisdiction}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
 has been the subject of much conflicting and inconsistent case law within California.  Although we will tackle the issue with respect to the People}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 s petition for mandate, our finding that a writ of prohibition is a remedy not available to the People precludes our need to define the term here.  }}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 (2) petitioner is without a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law; and (3) petitioner is a beneficially interested party.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 7 GCA }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  31301, 31302.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Because Guam}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s statute is derived from the 
California Code of Civil Procedure, we look to the substantial precedent developed within that state to assist in interpreting parallel Guam provisions. }{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [9]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The People argue that, pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, the assigned judge lacked the jurisdiction to entertain Laxamana}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  motion.}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Rule 9 reads, }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
[E]xcept for good cause shown, all applications for ex parte orders shall be heard . . . by the judge designated by the Presiding Judge.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid5336599  }{\scaps\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Guam Ct. R}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 . 9.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Neither party disputes that the assigned judge was not the judge designated to handle }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  matters on the day she heard Laxamana}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 motion.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Additionally, neither party disputes the fact that the preferred practice which has developed in the court below is for }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  motions to be brought directly before the judge assi
gned the case.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 While Laxamana}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s counsel is correct in his assertion that he simply followed what he knew to be the general practice, this does not justify conduct that is in clear violation of Rule 9.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 This cour
t expects compliance, by both court and counsel, with the procedural rules set forth in the Superior Court.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Under Rule 9, the assigned judge, being the non-}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}
{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  judge, should have first established good cause before proceeding with the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  application.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Absent good cause, the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  application should not have been entertained.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [10]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab However, a writ of prohibition is not the appropriate method by which to redress this wrong.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
A writ of prohibition is a preventive, not remedial measure.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Donner Fin. Co. v. Municipal Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 81 P.2d 1054, 1056, 28 Cal. App. 2d 112, 114 (Ct. App. 1938); }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Crittenden v. Mun. Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 31 Cal. Rptr. 280, 281, 216 Cal. App. 2d 811, 812 (Ct. App. 1963).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Thus, it will not lie to suspend a judicial proceeding already completed.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Donner}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 81 P.2d at 1056, 28 Cal. App. 2d at 114.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The People ask this court to issue the writ to arrest the proceedings of the lower court in this matter.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 However, the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  motion has been heard and an order rendered.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 There are no proceedings in violation of Rule 9 for this court to arrest.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [11]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s conduct in the July 6th hearing - specifically its request that Cepeda appear to argue the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s motion before the court - is similarly moot.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 A writ of prohibition cannot operate to arrest proceedings that are already completed.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Moreover, it is not clear to this court that the assigned judge was without authority to make the request.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The judge expressed a preference that Cepeda, the attorney who previously represented the People at the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 hearing and who wrote the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s motion, argue the points of her brief before the court.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Without objection, the People obliged the lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s request and Cepeda appeared before the court.}
{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 There is no evidence that the lower court would have refused to hear from the People if Cepeda could not be present.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
There is also no evidence that the People were prejudiced by having Cepeda argue the motion.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 While we recognize the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s right to select its counsel and discourage the lower court from intruding u
pon that right, the circumstances here do not warrant a finding that the lower court acted without jurisdiction.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See People v. Superior Court (Greer)}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 561 P.2d 1164, 1170-71, 19 Cal. 3d 255, 265 (1977) (discussing the executive}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s authority to choose who will prosecute a case, but recognizing that once the jurisdiction of the court is invoked by the filing of a criminal charge, the disposition of the case becomes a judicial responsibility and the discretion of the
 executive becomes subject to the supervision of the trial court).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 We hold that a writ of prohibition is not the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s appropriate remedy.}{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 B.\tab Writ of Mandate}{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 1.\tab Limiting the writ of mandate in criminal cases.}{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [12]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab 
The People are requesting an alternative writ of mandate that requires the lower court to vacate its order to preserve the field notes made during the investigation of Laxamana}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s case.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 A writ of mandate is
 used to compel performance of a legal duty, and must be issued whenever a beneficially interested petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available at law.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Title 7 GCA }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 31202, 31203 (1998); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Bank of Guam v. Reidy}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 2001 Guam 14, }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  27; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 San Francisco v. Superior Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 271 P. 121, 122, 94 Cal. App. 318, 320 (Ct. App. 1928); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Grant v. Bd. of Med. Exam}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 rs}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 43 Cal. Rptr. 270, 274, 232 Cal. App. 2d 820, 826-27 (Ct. App. 1965).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Furthermore, since this is a criminal case and the People are the petitioners, the right to extraordinary review is further limited.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [13]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab While the statutes do not expressly differentiate between the issuance of a writ in a civil versus criminal case, California}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s Supreme Court has strictly limited the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s right to seek extraordinary review in a criminal case.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 This approach began with }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 People v. Superior Court (Howard)}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 446 P.2d 138, 69 Cal. 2d 491 (1968), which raised the following concern: }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [t]he Legislature has determined that except under certain limited circumstances the People shall have no right of appeal in a criminal case.}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 446 P.2d at 143, 69 Cal. 2d at 498.}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Only by strictly limiting the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s right to seek an extraordinary writ will the court avoid }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
giv[ing] the People the very appeal which the Legislature has denied to them.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.
}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 144, 69 Cal. 2d at 499. }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 concluded by overlaying the statutory requirements for a writ of mandate with two judicially created rules: (1) writ of mandate will only issue if the court is acting in excess of its jurisdiction, }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 id.}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 143, 69 Cal. 2d at 498; and (2) writ of mandate will only issue if the need to correct error outweighs any harassment of the accused, }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 id.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 at 145, 69 Cal 2d at 501.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Further, }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  expressly held that a writ of mandate cannot be issued whe
re there is a danger of further retrial.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [14]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The California Supreme Court followed its decision in }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  with}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 People v. Superior Court (Edmonds)}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 483 P.2d 1202, 4 Cal. 3d 605 (1971).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 In }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Edmonds}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , the court re-enunciated the concerns raised in Howard, stating }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
[w]e disapproved certain prior cases which had suggested that every judicial act in excess of power is also an excess of jurisdiction, and which had thereby extended the term }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 jurisdiction}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 beyond its traditional sense . . . .}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Edmonds}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 483 P.2d at 1204, 4 Cal. 3d at 608.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The court ultimately issued a writ of mandate aft
er finding that the trial court erred because it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and concluding that the issuance of the writ posed no danger of further trial or retrial.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 1204, 1206, 4 Cal. 3d at 609, 611.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thus, in determining the mandate was appropriate, the court relied on the principles set forth in }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 .}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 1204, 4 Cal. 3d at 609.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [15]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard/Edmonds}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 balancing test was later expanded by a degree of judicial willingness to grant an extraordinary writ where t
he issue does not relate to questions of guilt or innocence, does not involve harassment of a defendant, or does raise issues of significant public interest.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 People v. Municipal Court (Gelardi)}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 149 Cal. Rptr. 30, 33, 84 Cal. App. 3d 692, 697 (Ct. App. 1978) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 However, the issue that}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 both }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  and }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Edmonds}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 left unclear, and the issue that has been the subject of much conflicting case law in California, is how to define the phrase }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 in excess of jurisdiction.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  }{
\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{\insrsid14447172  }{
\fs20\insrsid14447172 Although most cases deal with this issue when considering a writ of mandate, how a court defines }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
excess of jurisdiction}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
 affects both the writ of prohibition and writ of mandate.  A writ of prohibition is only issued if a court is acting in excess of its jurisdiction.  7 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172  31301.  Now, in accordance with the test set forth in }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Howard}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
, a writ of mandate can only be issued if a court exceeds its jurisdiction.  Thus, adopting a position that clearly defines when a court has exceeded its jurisdiction is essential to provide future guidance to this court in granting extraordinary relief.}
}}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [16]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Like most jurisdictional splits, the two sides of this issue are represented by two completely opposing definitions.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The expansive concept of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 in excess of jurisdiction}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  is derived from civil cases.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 In }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Abelleira v. Dist. Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 109 P.2d 942, 17 Cal. 2d 280 (1941), the court determined that lack of jurisdiction refers to }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
any acts which exceed the defined power of a court in any instance, whether that power be defined by constitutional provision, express statutory declaration, or rules developed by the courts and followed under the doctrine of stare decisis . . . .}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Abelleira}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 109 P.2d at 948, 17 Cal. 2d at 291.}
{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 This broad concept of jurisdiction permits the issuance of a writ to correct errors that are an abuse of a court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s discretion.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See Gelardi}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 149 Cal. Rptr. at 33, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 698 (}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 mandate or prohibition may be allowed, before trial of an accused and on the People}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s application, to rectify . . . an }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 abuse of discretion}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  . . . .}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ) (citation omitted); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
see also People v. Municipal Court (Bonner)}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 163 Cal. Rptr. 822, 825-26, 104 Cal. App. 3d 685, 692 (Ct. App. 1980) (finding that a writ of mandate should issue where the court could only exercise its discretion in one way and it failed to do so).}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 In criminal cases, courts that follow this broad approach rely instead on the second of }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 two requirements, the balancing test, to limit the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s access to extraordinary review.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See People v. Municipal Court (Kong)}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 175 Cal. Rptr. 861, 865, 122 Cal. App. 3d 176, 182 (Ct. App. 1981); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach)}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 230 Cal. Rptr. 890, 895, 186 Cal. App. 3d 524, 531-32 (Ct. App. 1986) (overruled on other grounds by }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 People v. Norrell}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 913 P.2d 4
58, 13 Cal. 4th 1 (1996)) (summarizing cases that have adopted the broad view of jurisdiction in the wake of }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ).}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [17]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The restrictive concept of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 in excess of jurisdiction}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 is derived from the traditional concept of jurisdiction, i.e., where the court has acted without jurisdiction of the subject matter or person.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 446 P.2d at 144, 69 Cal. 2d at 500.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Courts have interpreted }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  and }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Edmonds}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  as rejecting the more expansive definition of jurisdiction in favor of the more traditional concept.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See Kong}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 175 Cal. Rptr. at 865, 122 Cal. App. 3d at 183 (stating that mandate will not issue unless the order complained of was made without jurisdiction in the traditional sense); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also People v. Superior Court (Ludwing)}
{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 220 Cal. Rptr. 87, 88, 174 Cal App. 3d 473, 475 (Ct. App. 1985) (noting that the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  test requires an act in excess of a lower court}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s jurisdiction in the traditional sense); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
see also People v. Superior Court (Duval)}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 244 Cal. Rptr. 522, 525, 198 Cal. App. 3d 1121, 1128 (Ct. App. 1988).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Under this more narrow approach, an abuse of discretion is not a sufficient basis upon which to issue a writ.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Kong}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 175 Cal. Rptr. at 864, 122 Cal. App. at 180.}{
\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [18]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab It is from these two divergent lines of cases that Guam must adopt its position.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 As previously noted, subsequent to the }
{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard/Edmonds}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  ruling, many appellate courts followed the expansive concept of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 in excess of jurisdiction}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 and combined it with the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  balancing test.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Kong}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 175 Cal. Rptr. at 865, 122 Cal. App. 3d at 182; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Himmelsbach}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 230 Ca
l. Rptr. at 895, 186 Cal. App. 3d at 531-32 (summarizing the holdings of courts that adopted a broad view of jurisdiction).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Kong}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 was the first case that took this approach one step further, relying on its interpretation of the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard/Edmonds}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  decisions to expressly limit }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 jurisdiction}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  to its traditional definition.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See Kong}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 175 Cal. Rptr. at 864-66, 122 Cal. App. 3d at 180-83.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 However, }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Kong}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  final step is neither warranted under }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard/Edmonds}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  or necessary to achieve the goals expressed in those decisions.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [19]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  expressly disapproved of a straight adoption of the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Abelleira}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  approach, fearing that this would provide the People with review of any claimed error occurring at any time in a criminal trial.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 446 P.2d at 145, 69 Cal. 2d at 501.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 But instead of rejecting }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Abelleira}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  altogether, }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  simply imposed an additional balancing requirement for the court to consider.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thus, instead of limiting the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s right to extraordinary review by narrowing the definition of jurisdiction to its traditional scope, }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  added a second, balancing requirement.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [20]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The tone in }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Edmonds}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  also reflected a desire to bring the definition of }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 jurisdiction}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  more in line with the traditional concept, }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see Edmonds}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 483 P.2d at 1204, 
4 Cal. 3d at 608 (disapproving of those cases that extended jurisdiction beyond its traditional sense), and the facts of the case would clearly have permitted it, }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 id.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 at 1204, 4 Cal. 3d at 609 (finding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 However, instead of seizing the opportunity to unambiguously limit }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 jurisdiction}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  to its traditional scope, the court concluded by expressly reaffirming }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  and issuing the mandate based on those principles.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 1204, 4 Cal. 3d at 609.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
In short, both cases raised the traditional definition, but neither case chose to go so far as to adopt it.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [21]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab This is because the more expansive approach, as set forth in }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Gelardi}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, strikes the balance strived for in }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  by providing the People with a means of correcting judicial error while remaining cognizant of the legislature}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s intent to restrict appeal by the People.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
See Gelardi}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 149 Cal. Rptr. at 33, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 697.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 As noted in }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Bonner}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 :}{
\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
We perceive no reason why the People should not be accorded a similar right to pretrial review by writ of a discovery order for which no support can be found in the rec
ord. . . . If such review is not accorded to [sic] People, they have no means by which to review a discovery order at all, even if it was made wholly without justification and imposes an outrageous burden on the prosecution and the public fisc [sic].}{
\insrsid5336599  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Bonner}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 163 Cal. Rptr. at 828, 104 Cal. App. 3d at 695.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Furthermore, if the express limitations set by the legislature are relied upon to limit the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s right to appellate review, then the legislature should be afforded similar deference when it expresses a desire that the People be permitted review.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See People v. Superior Court (Ongley)}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 240 Cal. Rptr. 487, 488 n.1, 195 Cal. App. 3d 165, 168 n.1 (Ct. App. 1987).}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [T]he legislature has expressly authorized the People to employ the device of extraordinary writ. . . .}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The statute, on its face, is applicable to all petitions from any party to a superior court writ proceeding.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Had the Legislature intended no review by the People, it would have clearly so provided. . . .}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\i\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Based on these principles, this court declines to adopt the traditional definition of jurisdiction in its issuance of extraordinary relief.}{\insrsid5336599  }
{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Instead, we adopt the more expansive approach and use it in connection with the }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  balancing test.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [22]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab In summary, the issuance of a writ of mandate requires a petitioner to satisfy both statutory and judicial requirements.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The statute requires the petitioner to show both that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and that he is a beneficially interested party.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 7 GCA }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  31202.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Under judicially imposed constraints, the People must show that the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction and that the need to correct the error outweighs any harassment of the accused.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
See Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 446 P.2d at 143, 145, 69 Cal. 2d at 498, 501; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Bonner}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 163 Cal. Rptr. at 827-28, 104 Cal. App. 3d at 694-95 (citations omitted).
}{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 2.\tab Statutory Requirements.}{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [23]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab As the petitioner, the burden lies with the People to satisfy 7 GCA }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  31202.}{\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{\insrsid14447172  }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 In }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Guam Publ}{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 n, Inc. v. Superior Court}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 1996 Guam 6, this court set forth the fo
llowing guidelines for the issuance of a writ of mandate:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid14447172 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid14447172 
(1) The party seeking writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires; (2) The petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; (3) The court}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) The court}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the rules; and (5) The court}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 s order raises new and important problems, or issues of law or first impression.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Guam Publications}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 1996 Guam 6 at }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid14447172  11 (citing }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Bauman v. United States}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977)).  However, these factors were derived from the Ninth Circuit.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 See Bauman}{
\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 557 F.2d at 654-55.  The issuance of an extraordinary writ under the federal standard, which is found in the All Writs Statute, 29 U.S.C. }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172  1651, sets forth a different standard that the standard found in Title 7 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid14447172  31203.  Under Guam}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 s writ statute, if a }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 beneficially interested}{
\fs20\insrsid14447172  party establishes that he has }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
, then the statutory requirements for the issuance of a writ are satisfied, irrespective of the remaining factors.  7 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
 31203.  While the factors considered in }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Guam Publications}{\fs20\insrsid14447172  remain relevant to a court}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid14447172 s determination of mandamus, it must be noted that the two controlling factors are clearly dictated by statute.}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See People v. Superior Court (Bruneman)}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 1998 Guam 24, }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  3; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
see also Grant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 43 Cal. Rptr. at 274, 232 Cal. App. 2d at 826-27.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Whether a petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
law is a question of fact to be determined by the court on a case-by-case basis.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 San Francisco}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 271 P. at 122, 94 Cal. App. at 320.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 130.20 (1998) enumerates the grounds for a government appeal in criminal cases.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 No provision within 8 GCA }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  130.20 permits the People to appeal a pretrial discovery order.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thus, the People are without a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. 
}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [24]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab A beneficially interested party is a person that }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Cartsen v. Psychology Examining Comm.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 614 P.2d 276, 278, 27 Cal. 3d 793, 796 (1980).}{\insrsid5336599  }
{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The petitioner must establish both that a substantial right needs protection and that a substantial injury was or will }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 in fact}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  be suffered.}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See id.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 278, 27 Cal. 3d at 796-97; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Comm}{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 n}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 981 P.2d 499, 504, 21 Cal. 4th 352, 361-62 (1999) (finding that the requirement that a party be }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
beneficially interested}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  is equivalent to the federal }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 injury in fact}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  test); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Braude v. City of Los Angeles}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 276 Cal. Rptr. 256, 258, 226 Cal. App. 3d 83, 87 (Ct. App. 1990) (noting that a petitioner must have a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings);}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  see also Grant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 43 Cal. Rptr. at 274, 232 Cal. App. 2d at 827 (stating that a writ of mandate will not issue unless it is necessary to protect a substantial right from substantial damage).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 More specifically, the pe
titioner must show that }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
it has suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Associated Builders}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 981 P.2d at 504, 21 Cal. 4th at 362 (internal quotations and citations omitted).}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [25]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The People argue that the lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order of preservation harmed it in two ways.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 First, the court denied the People due process of law by hearing Laxamana}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s motion for preservation}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 .}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Second, the court rendered the People vulnerable to contempt charges by demanding field notes in the possession of the GPD be preserved.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The People must establish that they suffered one of the above two injuries to establish that they are a party with a beneficial interest.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [26]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab As discussed previously, the assigned judge should neither have heard nor rendered an order in response to Laxamana}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  motion.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
However, the lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s violation of Rule 9 is not, in and of itself, sufficient to e
stablish a beneficial interest.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See Personnel Comm}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 n v. Barstow Unified Sch. Dist.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 797, 801, 43 Cal. App. 4th 871, 880 (Ct. App. 1996).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 It is the People}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s position that, in addition to violating Rule 9, hearing the matter }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  constituted a violation of their due process rights.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The basic elements of due process are reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 City of Alhambra v. Superior Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 252 Cal. Rptr. 789, 797, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1118, 1131 (Ct. App. 1988).}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 In }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 City of Alhambra}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , the People argued that the court denied it due process by considering an }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  motion for pretrial discovery under seal.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 800, 205 Cal. App. 3d at 1135.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The court found no due process violation, in part, because the People were well prepared and argued the motion at length, thereby demonstrating that they were in fact afforded a fair hearing.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\i\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The People in the instant case were also granted the opportunity to fully brief and argue the merits of their position.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 At the initial }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ex parte}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  hearing, the court simply ordered the field notes be preserved for a later determination of discoverability.}{\insrsid5336599 
 }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Later, the People provided the lower court with a 24-page brief of the issues and argued their motion at length before the court.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Like the court in }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 City of Alhambra}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , we find this evidences that the People were provided a fair hearing and sufficient due process.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [27]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The next issue to address is whether the order of preservation itself constitutes sufficient injury to render the People a beneficially interested party.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The People argue that the court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order subjects them to 
contempt charges for the actions of a third party.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
However, the precedent is firmly established that for purposes of pretrial discovery, police agencies are considered to be agents acting on behalf of the prosecution.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See United States v. Bryan}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 868 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1989) (}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The prosecutor will be deemed to have knowledge of and access to anything in the possession, custody, or control of any federal agency participating in the same investigation of the defendant.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also United States v. Brooks}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 966 F.2d 1500, 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (determining that the prosecution}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s duty to search extends to branches of the government }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 closely aligned with the prosecution}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ) (citation omitted); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also United States v. Ramos-Cartagena}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 9 F. Supp. 2d 88, 91 (D.P.R. 1998) (}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 prosecution}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  also includes police officers, federal agents, and other investigatory personnel who participated in the investigation and prosecution of the instant case.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also People v. Johnson}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 608 N.Y.S.2d 995, 996-97 (App. Div. 1994) (providing a three prong test for determining whether an agency constitutes a }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 police agency,}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 thereby placing upon the prosecution an affirmative obligation to search a police agency}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s files for discoverable material).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 To find otherwise would allow the prosecution to circumvent its duties of disclosure by }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 keeping itself in ignorance, or compartmentalizing information about different aspects of a case.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Carey v. Duckworth}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 738 F.2d 875, 878 (7th Cir. 1984).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Because we find that the People are imputed with possession of material within the control or possession of GPD, the court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order requiring the People to inform GPD to preserve the field notes was not improperly directed.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [28]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab 
Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the lower court intended or intends to hold the People in contempt for failure to preserve field notes already destroyed prior to the issuance of the June 21st order.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Transcript, vol. --, p. 18-19 (Hearing on Defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s Ex Parte Motion to Preserve Witness Statements and Investigative Field Notes, June 21, 2001) (ordering that investigative field notes that }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 may be available}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  be preserved }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 as of today}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The judge, k
nowing that it was the practice of GPD to routinely destroy field notes, issued the preservation order in an effort to save whatever field notes still existed to allow the issue of their discoverability to later be determined.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The People were expected to contact GPD and notify GPD of the court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s order.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 This is what the People did, and whatever field notes still existed were preserved.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order was fulfilled, and therefore, there is no actual or imminent threat of contempt.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [29]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Because the People have suffered no injury in fact, they are not a beneficially interested party.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The court}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order requiring the preservation of GPD}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s field notes did not deprive the People of due process nor are the People facing any actual or imminent charges of contempt.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Absent a showing of a beneficial interest,}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 as required by 7 GCA }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 31203, the People cannot establish standing to seek a writ of mandate vacating the lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order of preservation.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Therefore, we decline to issue the writ with respect to the June 21, 2001 order.}{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 C.\tab 
A writ of mandate will be issued ordering the lower court to vacate its order that the field notes be disclosed because the lower court abused its discretion in determining the field notes}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  discoverability. }{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [30]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab At the July 6th hearing, the assigned judge found GPD}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s field notes discoverable and ordered that they be disclosed to Laxamana.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The People a
rgue that field notes are not discoverable material under Guam statute and seek a writ of mandate vacating the lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Again, the burden is on the petitioner to show that the statutory and judicial requirements for a writ of mandate are met.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [31]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab An improper pretrial discovery order satisfies the statutory requirements for a writ of mandate.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
As noted above, the People cannot appeal from such an order, and are thus without a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Second, the People are a beneficially interested party, since an improper discovery order would require the People to give to the defense material in their possession that the defense has no statutory right to receive.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [32]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab However, the People must also show that their petition satisfies the requirements of }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howard}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 .}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The discoverability of police field notes is an issue that courts at both the federal and state level have struggled with.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
While remaining cognizant of the legislature}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s intent to restrict appeal by the People, we find this to be a case which does not relate to any questions of guilt or innocence nor does it involve any harassment of the defendant. }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Gelardi}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 149 Cal. Rptr.at 33, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 697 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Furthermore,}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
the particular issue raised here, with respect to a defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s right to pretrial discovery of police field notes, is of significant public interest.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Given the importance of the issue and the fact that it is a matter of first impression for our court, we hereby find that the balance favors review.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [33]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab In determining whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the field notes discoverable, the court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s focus rests on the potential discoverability of police field notes under Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  70.10 (1998).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 In particular, we must determine the following: (1) how Guam defines the term }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  as used in section 70.10; (2) whether field notes are potentially discoverable under section 70.10 and should h
ereinafter be preserved; and (3) whether the lower court properly found the preserved field notes discoverable under section 70.10. }{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 1.\tab Defining }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Statement.}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [34]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Section 70.10 delineates materials that the prosecution is obligated to disclose to the defense in a criminal case.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The statute reads in pertinent part:}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  70.10.}{
\b\insrsid5336599  }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Matters Generally Discoverable; Prosecutors}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  Obligations.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 (a) . . . upon noticed motion by the defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defendant}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s attorney or permit the defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s attorney to inspect and copy the following material and information within his possession or control, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the prosecuting attorney:}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
(1) the name and address of any person whom the prosecuting attorney intends to call as a witness at the trial, together with his relevant written or recorded statement;}{\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{\insrsid14447172  }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 This section is similar to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. }{
\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
 3500 (2000), in that it concerns the disclosure of witness statements.  However, there are substantial differences between section 70.10(1) and Jencks that will be discussed further.}}}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 (2) any written or recorded state
ment and the substance of any oral statement made by the defendant or made by a co-defendant if the trial is to be a joint one;}{\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{\insrsid14447172  }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 This section, requiring the discovery of a defendant}{
\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 s statement, parallels Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.}}}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 . . .}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
(7) any material or information which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to the offense charged or would tend to reduce his punishment therefor.}{\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{\insrsid14447172  }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
This section is the statutory codification of the decision in }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Brady v. Maryland}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
, which held that the suppression by the prosecution of exculpatory evidence upon request by the defendant violates due process.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Brady v. Maryland}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 373 U.S. 83, 86-87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963).  }}}
{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  70.10 (1998).}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Focusing on subsections (1) and (2), it is evident that disclosure of witness and defendant statements depends on what qualifies under section 70.10 as a }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 A survey of federal and state court decisions reveals that a surprisingly significant amount of litigation surrounds the construction of this seemingly unambiguous term.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [35]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Cases that have faced the task of defining }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  generally fall along one of two lines of thought.}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The Jencks Act represents the more restrictive approach, requiring a substantially verbatim recording to be produced contemporaneously with the making of the statement.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 18 U.S.C. }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  3500(e) (2000).}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Jurisdictions that have adopted the more restrictive approach believe that narrowly defining }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  precludes counsel from unfairly using another}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s impression or interpretation of a witness}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  statement to harass or impeach that witness.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ABA }{\scaps\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Standards for Criminal Justice }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  2.1 cmt. (Approved Draft 1970) [hereinafter }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ABA Draft}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ]; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 State v. Fukusaku}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 946 P.2d 32, 63-64 (Haw. 1997) (referring to the ABA Draft).}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The more liberal approach is represented by the ABA majority standard, which finds any utterance recorded in whole or in part sufficient to constitute a statement.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
ABA Draft }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  2.1 cmt.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The policy supporting this viewpoint is that broader discovery encourages fairness by giving the defense access to written and recorded statements, while simultaneously discouraging the practice by some
 law enforcement of destroying original notes in order to avoid cross-examination.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ABA Draft }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  2.1 cmt.; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Campbell v. United States}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 373 U.S. 487, 495-97, 83 S. Ct. 1356, 1362 (1963) (holding that the di
scovery of interview notes furthers the fair administration of criminal justice).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Guam}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s legislature did not expressly define the term }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  in section 70.10.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
However, a review of the legislative history can guide this court in adopting a definition.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [36]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab In }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Taitano v. Government of Guam}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 187 F. Supp. 75 (D. Guam A.D. 1960), Guam adopted the Jencks Act (hereinafter }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Jencks}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ), a federal statute that sets forth two basic propositions.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Taitano}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 187 F. Supp. at 78.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The first is that a witness}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  statement is not discoverable until after the witness testifies at trial.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 18 U.S.C. }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  3500(a).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Second, Jencks defined a statement as being: (1) a written statement made by the witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him; (2) a recording which is a substantially verbatim recital of the witness}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  oral statement and is made contemporaneously with the making of the statement; or (3) a statement made, however
 recorded, by a witness to the grand jury.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 18 U.S.C. }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  3500(e).}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [37]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Guam superceded the first of Jencks}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  two principles when it passed section 70.10(a), permitting the pretrial disclosure of a witness}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  statement.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 However, that statute is noticeably silent with respect to Jencks second principle, the definition of the term }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The People argue that the legislature}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s failure to expressly supplant the definition of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  in section 70.10 leaves the Jencks definition intact.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 We disagree.}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The advisory notes accompanying section 70.10 reveal that the statute was predicated on section 2.1 of the ABA Draft and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Both models advocate a position inconsistent with Jencks}{\insrsid5336599 .
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [38]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The ABA Draft did not expressly incorporate a definition of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  in its provisions.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 However, the Committee did state in its Commentary to section 2.1 that a substantial majority of the ABA Committee rejected the much-litigated, restrictive definition of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  contained in Jencks.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ABA Draft }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  2.1 cmt.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The Commentary also stated that the }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Advisory Comm
ittee intends that the term [statements] be given a broad meaning so as to include generally any utterances of the statement-giver which are recorded by any means in whole or in part, and regardless of to whom they were made . . . . It is also intended th
at the statements be discoverable regardless of how they are obtained, whether surreptitiously or voluntarily.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Clearly, the ABA Committee sought to expand its standards beyond Jencks, but left the extent of that expansion for individual jurisdictions to determine.}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [39]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Section 70.10 is also based on Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
There is evidence that Rule 16, which cited approvingly to the ABA Draft, adopts the broader approach for disclosure of a defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s statements.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\scaps\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Fed. R. Crim. P.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  16 cmt.; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 United States v. Lewis}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 511 F.2d 798, 803 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1975).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Both Rule 16 and the ABA Draft also favor the expansion of discovery, noting that }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 broad discovery contributes to the fair and efficient administration of criminal justice . . . .}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\scaps\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Fed. R. Crim. P.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  16 cmt.; ABA Draft }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  2.1 cmt.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 A narrow definition of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  limits a prosecutor}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s obligation to discl
ose, thereby undermining a policy of broader discovery.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thus, a position that encourages broader discovery by implication discourages the narrow approach of Jencks.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [40]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab In Guam}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s discovery statue, the advisory notes that introduce Chapter 70 expressly advocate the notion of expanding discovery, citing to }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 People v. Riser}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 47 C.2d 566, 586, 305 P.2d 1 (1956) (stating that }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 the state has no interest in deny
ing the accused access to all evidence that can throw light on the issues in the case . . . .}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  ).}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Title 8 GCA ch. 70 note (1998).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 This position is reflected throughout the Chapter}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s following sections, particularly section 70.10 because it relies on the ABA Draft and Rule 16, both of which pursue the same goal.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thus, upon review of the history of section 70.10 and in light of its aim to liberalize discovery, it is evident that the Legislature intended the term }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 to be broadly construed.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Therefore, we find that the e}{\insrsid5336599 nactment of section 70.10 supers}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 eded }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Taitano}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  and any application of Jencks in Guam.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Furthermore, we define }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 as used in section 70.10 to include any record that embodies or summarizes, in whole or in part, a person}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s verbal utterance.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ABA }{\scaps\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Standards for Criminal Justice}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  11-2.1 cmt. (3d ed. 1996).}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 This includes not only records created or adopted by the statement-giver, but any affidavits, police reports, tape recordings, 
interview notes, grand jury transcripts, letters, memoranda, or other documents or recordings of any type that reflect or summarize the statement made.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 2.\tab Field notes are potentially discoverable and must be preserved.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [41]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab By defining }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement,}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 we can now determine what is discoverable under section 70.10.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 State of Hawaii v. Maluia}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 539 P.2d 1200, 1209 (Haw. 1975) (noting that the definition of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 limits what is producible under the rule). Determining whether material is discoverable controls our inquiry because only items that may be discovered need to be preserved.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Therefore, this court must first determine whether the material contained in police field notes is potentially discoverable under section 70.10.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
If so, then we must further determine whether GPD must cease its practice of routinely destroying field notes.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [42]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab 
Police field notes, particularly those made during an interview with a defendant or witness, often contain phrases or quotes that reflect what the interviewee communicated to the officer.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Recording an interviewee}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s statement allows the officer to later transcribe that information into a more formal report.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Material of this nature is likely to fall within our definition of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  and is thus potentially discoverable under section 70.10.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Cases have found the information contained in rough notes of witness interviews discoverable, }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thompson v. Superior Court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 785, 787, 53 Cal. App. 4th 480, 485 (Ct. App. 1997), even under relatively narrow standards, }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
People v. Shaw}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 646 P.2d 375, 381 (Colo. 1982) (finding that original interview notes should have been preserved and disclosed under a standard that defined statements as substantial r
ecitals reduced to writing contemporaneously with the making of the statement).}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [43]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab The People rely on a line of cases that find field notes }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 per se}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  not discoverable.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 United States v. Harrison}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 524 F.2d 421, 431 n.25 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (citing to decisions from the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth circuits sanctioning the destruction of field notes); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 United States v. Hinton}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 719 F.2d 711, 717 n.11 (4th Cir. 1983) (adding cites of decisions subsequent to }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harrison}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 adhering to the majority rule that the loss of field notes does not require sanctions under Jencks);}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  Maluia}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 539 P.2d at 1209; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 State v. Morrison}
{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 575 P.2d 988, 990-91 (Or. Ct. App. 1978); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 State v. Wilcox}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 758 A.2d 824, 831 n.18 (Conn. 2000); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
People v. Holtzman}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 593 N.W.2d 617, 623 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 State v. Banks}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 446 So. 2d 497, 501-02 (La. 1984).}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The common thread weaving throughout these cases is an adoption of the Jencks narrow approach and a determination that the material written in field notes cannot qualify as a }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  under such a restrictive definition.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 However, this court rejects Jencks in favor of the ABA}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s more liberal approach.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thus, each of these cases becomes distinguishable.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [44]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Moreover, section 70.10 allows for discovery beyond witness statements.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Both defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s statements and }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Brady}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 material must be produced under section 70.10.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 There is precedent finding rough notes discoverable under Rule 16.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See Lewis}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 511 F.2d at 802 n.6 (citing to several cases that held agent notes discoverable if the notes contained the substance of defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s words); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also United States v. Harris}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 543 F.2d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 1976) (noting that several circuits have ruled rough notes of a defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s statements discoverable under Rule 16); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also United States v. Johnson}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 525 F.2d 999, 1003-04 (2d Cir. 1975) (noting a split in jurisdictions and finding that the a summary of defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s words constituted a discoverable statement under Rule 16).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 In addition, pursuant to }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Brady}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, any exculpatory evidence, even if contained in field notes, must be produced.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See California v. Trombetta}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 2532 (1984); }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Harrison}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 524 F.2d at 427.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Thus, field notes that contain material falling into either one of the above categories become discoverable.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [45]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Because field notes may contain information that can be discovered under section 70.10, they must be preserved.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [T]he duty of disclosure is operative as a duty of preservation.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 United States v. Bryant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 439 F.2d 642, 651 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 over
ruled on other grounds by}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Arizona v. Youngblood}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333 (1998)); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Maluia}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 539 P.2d at 1211; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Shaw}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 646 P.2d at 381 (}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The state has the duty to employ regular procedures to preserve such discoverable evidence}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 People v. Hitch}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 527 P.2d 361, 369, 12 Cal. 3d 641, 652 (1974) (}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
overruled on other grounds by}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 California v. Trombetta}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 167 U.S. 479, 104 S. Ct. 2528 (1984)) (requiring the government to show that it promulgated, enforced, and attempted in good faith to follow rigorous and systematic procedures designed to preserve all discoverable evidence); }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 State v. Wright}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 557 P.2d 1, 7 (Wash. 1976) (}{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 overruled on other grounds by State v. Straka}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 810 P.2d 888 (Wash. 1991)).}{\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{
\insrsid14447172  }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 Several cases by the U.S. Supreme Court consider the issue of preservation of evidence.  In }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Arizona v. Youngblood}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333 (1998), the U.S. Sup
reme Court held that, in order to establish a due process violation for failure to preserve evidence, a defendant must prove bad faith on the part of police officers.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Arizona}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
, 488 U.S. at 58, 109 S. Ct. at 337-38.  In }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 California v. Trombetta}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 167 U.S. 479, 104 S. Ct. 2528 (1984), the Court commented on the government}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 s affirmative duty to preserve evidence, finding that without a showing of materiality, a defendant cannot establish a due process violation under the fourteenth amendment.  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Trombetta}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
, 167 U.S. at 488-89, 104 S. Ct. at 2534.  These rulings, however, do not obviate the initial duty of the government to preserve discoverable evidence; they simply address the burden a defendant bears before he is entitle
d to remedial measures should the government fail to fulfill that duty.  
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid14447172 
The issues we are considering here do not raise a potential conflict with these established precedents.  We do not purport to establish a rule that the failure of officers to preserv
e field notes alone violates due process.  On the contrary, our imposition of a duty upon officers to preserve field notes is not a measure we find constitutionally required by due process.  Instead, we are determining whether the preservation of field no
tes is necessary in light of the obligations imposed upon the government and the court in section 70.10. }}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The obligation of the prosecution to disclose certain items is rendered meaningless without a corresponding obligation on the part of the prosecution to preserve those potentially discoverable items.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Simply put, the prosecution cannot disclose what it no longer possesses.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [46]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Perhaps even more significant is the notion that failure by a state agency to preserve potentially discoverable material usurps a judicial function.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harris}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 543 F.2d at 1248.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Determining the scope of discovery is a role traditionally reserved for the court.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{\insrsid14447172   }{
\fs20\insrsid14447172 It is worth noting at this point that Guam adopted the ABA Draft with one important modification.  The ABA Draft eliminated the language }{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 the court shall order,}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
 making it clear that discovery is to be accomplished by the parties themselves without court involvement.  Guam retained that language, indicating the legislature}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 s desire that the court retain its traditional function of determining the producibility of evidence.}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Campbell}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 373 U.S. at 493, 83 S. Ct. at 1360 (}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Final decision as to production must rest . . . within the good sense and experience of the district judge . . . .}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harrison}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 524 F.2d at 428 (}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The decision on discoverability is emphatically a judicial decision.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harris}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 543 F.2d at 1250 (}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [I]t is a judicial function to determine the issue of producibility.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Allowing a government agency to institute a procedure of regularly destroying potentially discoverable material vitiates the court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s authority, leaving the judiciary with the awkward task of guessing.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Whenever potentially exculpatory evidence is permanently lost, courts face the treach
erous task of divining the import of materials whose contents are unknown and, very often, disputed.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Trombetta}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 467 U.S. at 486, 104 S.Ct. at 2533.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Common sense dictates that the court cannot properly perform 
its inquiry if the material is destroyed.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harrison}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 524 F.2d at 427-28. }{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [47]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Not only does such a procedure impede on the court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s authority, but it simultaneously undercuts a defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
s statutory rights.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Bryant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 439 F.2d at 650 (}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [T]he right to a fair trial would depend on the uncertain and uncontrolled decisions of Government investigators.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Every defendant is entitled to the material listed in the provisions of section 70.10.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The language of the statute mandates that upon motion, the court order its discovery.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 If the court finds that the material falls within the statute, th
en the defendant has a statutory right to its disclosure.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The systematic destruction by police of notes that may or may not be discoverable is insufficient to protect a defendant}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s right to discovery.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 652.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Preservation ensures that a defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s future right to discovery is not diluted at another, less visible stage.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [48]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab There is a growing concern with respect to the administrative burden a broad preservation rule would impose on abiding governmental agencies.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 The court must be careful to avoid }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
imposing on the police and undifferentiated and absolute duty to retain and to preserve all material that might be of conceivable evidentiary significance in a particular prosecution.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Youngblood}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 488 U.S. at 58, 109 S. Ct. at 337.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
However, the court here is faced with preserving only a limited and defined type of material - field notes that contain information potentially discoverable under section 70.10.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The language of section 70.10, read liberally and in conjunction with the definition of }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 as set forth in this opinion, provides state agencies with an adequate guideline by which to distinguish between potentially discoverable and non-discoverable material.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Moreover, a preservation rule does not impose upon agencies any new affirmative duty; it simply requires them not to destroy something already created.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
While this undoubtedly will impose some additional burden on the police department, administrative convenience is an unpersuasive justification for sacrificing an individual}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s rights.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harrison}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 524 F.2d at 429.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thus, in the eyes of this court, considering the limited scope of preservation and balancing it against a defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s statutory rights, the administrative burden that comes with preserving field notes is relatively minimal.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Id.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [49]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Lastly, some critics question whether a defendant that receives a final police report incorporating an officer}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s field notes is entitled to receive both the field notes and the police report.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The Ninth Circuit found that the notes are producible even if it affirmatively appeared that the entire contents of the notes were included in a document that was turned over to the defense.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harris}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 543 F.2d at 1250 (referring to }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 United States v. Johnson}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 521 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir.)) .}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
The D.C. Circuit came to the same conclusion, reasoning that }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 e
ven the most conscientious agent can err . . . . And certainly we cannot consider it beyond the bounds of possibility that a report be distorted because of overzealousness on the part of the agent preparing it . . . .}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harrison}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 524 F.2d at 429-30.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 A glance over the shoulders of government agents may be required to safeguard and foster the search for truth in a criminal trial.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See id.}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  at 430; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Bryant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 439 F.2d at 648.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harrison}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
 also notes that officers will not be deterred from making final reports, since the more formal reports are often just as useful to the prosecution as the defense.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Harrison}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 524 F.2d at 429 n.21.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [50]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab This court can elect to work either proactively, by preventing the destruction of field notes, or reactively, by imposing sanctions following the destruction of field notes.}
{\cs15\super\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid14447172 \chftn }{\insrsid14447172  }{
\fs20\insrsid14447172 When addressing the issue of lost or destroyed evidence, cases have primarily developed along two lines of thought.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Maluia}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 539 P.2d at 1209.  T
he first deals with the producibility of such material, considering whether there is even an obligation to preserve such items. }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Hinton}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 
, 719 F.2d at 715 n.3.  The second focuses on the motives or reasons behind the destruction, imposing sanctions if the court finds the item was destroyed in bad faith and outside the regular practice of the agency.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 
Killian v. United States}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 368 U.S. 231, 242, 82 S. Ct. 302, 308 (1961); }{\i\fs20\insrsid14447172 Youngblood}{\fs20\insrsid14447172 , 488 U.S. at 58, 109 S.Ct. at 337 (finding that the failure to preserve potenti
ally useful evidence does not constitute a violation of due process without a showing of bad faith on the part of the government agency).   Faced with a practice of routine destruction, this court felt the more pertinent inquiry was whether the material w
as producible thereby imposing an obligation to preserve.}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
There is substantial case law addressing the reactive approach, most of which decline to impose sanctions for the destruction of discoverable material in light of the harmless error doctrine.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Howe
ver, many of these same courts have frowned when faced with an agency that employs a practice of routinely destroying items likely to contain discoverable material. }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 See Maluia}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 539 P.2d at 1211 (stating that a number of courts have cautioned against the destruction of interview notes upon preparation of the agent}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s report); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also United States v. Johnson}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 337 F.2d 180, 202 (4th Cir. 1964) (criticizing the FBI practice of routinely destroying notes); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also United States v. Williams}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 604 F.2d 1102, 1117 n.7 (8th Cir. 1979) (leaving open the issue of whether rough notes should be retained and produced, but noting that }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 such would be a better practice than routine destruction.}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 ).}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
We similarly discourage such a practice but elect to work proactively, reserving reactive measures for those inevitable instances when field notes are inadvertently lost or destroyed.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 We believe that
 the best method of enforcing a defendant}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s statutory right to discovery and abiding by}{
\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 legislative intent is for GPD to cease its routine practice of destroying field notes and to institute procedures that preserve them.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 3.\tab The lower court erred in failing to review the field notes before ordering them discoverable.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [51]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab 
The scope of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the lower court and is generally reviewed for manifest abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Campbell}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
, 373 U.S. at 493, 83 S. Ct. at 1360-61; }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also State v. Yates}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 765 P.2d 291, 293 (Wash. 1988); }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 see also Fukusaku}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 946 P.2d at 63.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 If the lower court abused its discretion in determining that GPD}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s field notes were discoverable, then it acted in excess of its jurisdiction, and a writ of mandate may be issued to correct the error. }{\insrsid5336599 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [52]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Discoverability turns, not on the form of the material, but on its content.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Thus, whether information is conta
ined in a police report or an officer}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s rough field notes is not determinative.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 A court must exercise its statutorily delegated power and review the substance of the recording to determine whether the defendant is entitled to its disclosure.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
Here, the lower court ordered the production of the preserved field notes without first inspecting them.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Inasmuch as the trial court failed to distinguish notes that qualify as a }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 statement}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  from notes that do not, the order was too broad.}{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5336599  }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Fukusaku}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 , 946 P.2d at 64.}{\insrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Therefore, we find that the lower court abused its discretion in finding the field notes discoverable without first conducting an in-camera review to determine whether the field notes contained any section 70.10 material.}
{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Based on our finding that the lower court abused its discretion in ordering the disclosure of the field notes, we issue a writ of mandate directing the court to vacate its disclosure order.}{
\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 IV.}{\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [53]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab In summary, we decline to grant the People}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s petition for a peremptory writ of prohibition or an alternative writ of mandate with respect to the lower court}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 s order that the police field notes be preserved.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
However, an alternative writ of mandate shall issue directing the lower court to vacate its order that the People disclose the preserved field notes to Laxamana.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
We remand the case to the lower court in order to allow Laxamana to renew his motion for discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 70.10.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
A motion indiscriminately seeking the discovery of all investigative notes is not a proper request for section 70.10 material.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
We emphasize that the scope of section 70.10 is limited and only those field notes which contain material potentially discoverable under its provision need be preserved.}{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 
However, in the same breath, we warn officers to read the provisions of section 70.10 broadly and liberally in order to avoid the negligent destruction of field notes that may contain discoverable material.}{\insrsid5336599  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 [54]}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab Let a Peremptory Writ of Mandate issue, directing the lower court to vacate its July 6, 2001 order and remanding}{\b\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599  }{
\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
\par Justice }{\i\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab }{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5336599  }{\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 Associate Justice}{\insrsid5336599 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid5336599 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5336599 {\insrsid14447172\charrsid5336599 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR.
\par Chief Justice
\par }}