{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f37\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f38\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f39\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f41\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}
{\f42\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f43\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f44\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f45\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}
{\f46\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;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\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;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid11340367 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid11340367 footer;}{\*\cs18 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid11340367 page number;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1387169\rsid5583804\rsid5900198\rsid6847412\rsid9193889\rsid11216411
\rsid11340367\rsid12344356\rsid12529737}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author  Supreme Court of Guam}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2006\mo3\dy31\hr9\min15}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy31\hr9\min15}
{\version2}{\edmins1}{\nofpages25}{\nofwords10320}{\nofchars58824}{\*\company  }{\nofcharsws69006}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1080 
\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\rsidroot11216411 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11216411 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11216411 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11216411 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11216411 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1166\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid12529737\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 People v. Gutierrez}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid11216411 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {
\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid12344356 25}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\fs20\insrsid11340367\charrsid11340367  NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {\cs18\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid12529737 38}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5900198 
{\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}}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\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\pararsid12344356 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 PEOPLE OF GUAM,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Plaintiff-Appellant,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 v.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ, CLIFFORD A. GUZMAN, 
\par JOSEPH LUIS CRUZ, AND THELMA ANN D. AGUON PEREZ, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Defendants-Appellees.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Supreme Court Case No.: CRA04-004
\par Superior Court Case No.: CF0200-04}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 OPINION}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Filed: November 9, 2005}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Cite as: 2005 Guam 19}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on June 29, 2005
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11340367\charrsid6847412 \page }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par }{\ul\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant:}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Lewis W. Littlepage
\par }{\insrsid6847412 Asst. Attorney General}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid6847412 Office of the Attorney General}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Pedro}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid6847412 s Plaza}{\insrsid1387169\charrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 287 W. O}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Brien Dr.}{\insrsid1387169\charrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee
\par Carl T.C. Gutierrez:}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par F. Randall Cunliffe, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Esq.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Cunliffe & Cook, P.C.
\par 210 Archbishop F.C. Flores St., Ste. 200
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96932
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 

\par 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee
\par Clifford A. Guzman:
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Larry Teker, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Esq.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Teker, Torres & Teker, P.C.
\par Ste. 2A, 130 Aspinall Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96932
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \trowd \irow1\irowband1
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 

\par 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par }{\ul\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Joseph Luis Cruz:
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr., }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Esq.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Arriola, Cowan & Arriola
\par 259 Martyr St., Ste. 201
\par P.O. Box X
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96932
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \trowd \irow2\irowband2
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 

\par \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee 
\par Thelma Ann D. Aguon Perez:}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Anthony C.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Perez, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Esq.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Peter C. Perez, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Esq.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par Lujan Unpingco Aguigui & Perez, LLP
\par 300 Pacific Daily News Bldg.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par 238 Archbishop F.C. Flores St.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \trowd \irow3\irowband3\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11340367\charrsid6847412 

\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 BFORE: FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Presiding Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice; MIGUEL S. DEMAPAN, Justice }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{
\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 Chief Justice F. Philip Carbul
lido recused himself from this matter.  As the next senior member of the panel, Associate Justice Frances Tydingco-Gatewood sits as Presiding Justice of the panel.  Miguel S. Demapan, Chief Justice of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands sits 
as Justice }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Pro Tempore}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 .  }}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 PER CURIAM:}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [1]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant, the People of Guam (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ), appeal from a Memorandum of Decision issued by the Superior Court of
 Guam ordering the dismissal with prejudice of the criminal case filed against the Defendants-Appellees, Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Clifford A. Guzman, Joseph Luis Cruz and Thelma D. Ann Aguon Perez (collectively, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Defendants}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Memorandum amended a previously-issued Decision and Order that allowed for dismissal of the case without prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The People argue on appeal that the trial court lost jurisdiction after ordering dismissal without prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Alternatively, the People argue that the trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine and abused its discretion in ordering dismissal with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
We reject the argument that the trial court lost jurisdiction and hold that the trial court was justified in dismissing the case with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Accordingly, we affirm.}{\insrsid6847412 

\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 I.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [2]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab 
The proceedings below involved a number of indictments and superseding indictments against the defendants.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Perez was first indicted on Nove
mber 20, 2003 in Superior Court Case No. CF551-03.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The People then presented a superseding indictment against her on January 6, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Gutierrez and Guzman were first indicted on December 30, 2003 in CF0615-03.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 A superseding indictment was then presented
 on February 20, 2004, joining Perez, Gutierrez, Guzman, and Cruz.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [3]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Perez had waiv
ed her right to a speedy trial on December 10, 2003, but after the superseding indictment of January 6, 2004, she asserted her right on January 9, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Guzman asserted his right to a speedy trial on January 29, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Gutierrez asserted his right to a speedy trial on March 10, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Cruz asserted his right to a speedy trial on March 18, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Perez waived her right to a speedy trial on March 15, 2004.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [4]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab On April 20, 2004, the trial court dismissed a majority of charges in CF0615-03.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The People then filed another superseding indictment against all four defendants on April 23, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
On June 2, 2004, the court dismissed CF0615-03.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 On June 9, 2004, the People then presented an indictment alleging the same criminal acts under a new case number, Superio
r Court Case No. CF0200-04.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 On July 7, 2004, the record and file in CF0615-03 was consolidated with CF0200-04.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [5]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab On July 9, 2004, Perez filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Present Exculpatory Evidence.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
On July 12, 2004, Perez filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice for Denial of Defendant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Right to a Speedy Trial.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
On July 13, 2004, Cruz filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Lack of Speedy Trial.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Gutierrez and Guzman joined both speedy trial motions
 and the motion to dismiss for failure to present exculpatory evidence.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [6]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab On August 4, 2004, the People filed a request for leave to dismiss.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
That same day, the court held a hearing on these pre-trial motions.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 On August 16, 2004, the trial court granted the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion to dismiss, but reserved the issue of whether such dismissal would be with or without prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [7]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab On August 27, 2004, the trial court issued decisions and orders ruling on the motions.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
In the first order, the court granted the motion to dismiss based on the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s failure to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In the second order, the court denied the motion to dismiss regarding the speedy trial violation (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the Speedy Trial Order}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This order, however, also determined that the time for calculating speedy trial would begin when the defendant first asserted the right, and would not be reset upon the filing of a superseding indictment.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In the third order, pursuant to the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s request for leave to dismiss, the court determined that dismissal of the case would be without prejudice (}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the Dismissal without Prejudice Order}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court dismissed the case without prejudice}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 on reliance on the People}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s contention that its office }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
must give priority to cases involving physical violence, and that resources are inadequate to go forward at the present time.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Excerpts of Record, (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ER}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ), tab 6, p. 3 (Decision & Order In Re: Dismissal with Prejudice).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In the Dismissal without Prejudice Order, the trial court rejected the Defendants}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  argument that the case should be dismissed with prejudice due to the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s bad faith.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [8]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab On August 30, 2004, the trial court }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 gave notice that it would reconsider the Dismissal without Prejudice Order, and scheduled a hearing for September 1, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 All parties appeared at the hearing and arguments were made 
before the trial court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 At the conclusion, the trial court ruled from the bench that dismissal would be with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [9]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The court instructed the People to file the dismissal order by September 3, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The trial court then on September 10, 2004, issued a Dismissal with Prejudice Order memorializing the findings and conclusions of the September 1, 2004 hearing.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s decision was based on its discovery that contrary to the prior assertions of the Peo
ple in seeking dismissal without prejudice, the People were pursuing other non-violent criminal indictments.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The court found the existence of another indictment against the Defendant Gutierrez to be contrary to the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s assertions during the hearing that there was a lack of resources necessary to prosecute non-violent cases within the Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Office.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court dismissed the case with prejudice, determining that the People were acting in bad faith, and that the opportunity to reindict the Defendants would be harassment.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER, tab 8 (Memorandum of Decision:}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [10]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The People did not file a dismissal as ordered by the trial court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Instead, the People filed a Notice of Appeal before this court on September 14, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Notice of Appeal specified that the People were appealing specifically from the August 27,
 2004 Decision and Order holding that the time for calculating speedy trial would not be reset upon the filing of a new indictment (i.e., the Speedy Trial Order), and the September 10, 2004 Memorandum of Decision stating that the dismissal, based on the P
eople}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s request, would be with prejudice (i.e., the Dismissal with Prejudice Order).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [11]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab This court held that the People could appeal from the Dismissal with Prejudice Order even without the entry of judgment pursuant to Title 8 GCA }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  130.20(a)(5).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This court also found, upon the motion of Perez, joined by the remaining Defendants, that the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s appeal of the Speedy Trial Order was frivolous and issued sanctions accordingly. }{
\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 II.}{\b\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [12]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab This court has jurisdiction over the Dismissal with Prejudice Order pursuant to Title 8 GCA }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  130.20(a)(5) (Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037 (200
5)), which states that the government may appeal }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[a]n order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating the action before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy or where the defendant has waived jeopardy.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 People v. Superior Court (Bruneman)}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 1998 Guam 24, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  9 (stating that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
section 130.20 is a jurisdictional statute}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ); }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 see also}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 People v. Pak}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 1998 Guam 27, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  6.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 III.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [13]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [T]he trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s order granting or denying a motion to dismiss an indictment is reviewable for abuse of discretion.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Derr}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 726 F.2d 617, 619 (10th Cir. 1984).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 A tria
l court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally based the decision.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Town House Dep}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 t Stores, Inc. v. Ahn}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2003 Guam 6, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  27 (quoting}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2000 Guam 30, 
}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  11). This court has stated:}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 An abuse of discretion has been defined as that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 exercised to an end not justified by the evidence, a judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts as are found.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 ' }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 When using this standard, a reviewing court does not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Instead, we must first have a definite and firm conviction the trial court, after weighing relevant factors, committed clear error of judgment in its conclusion.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 People v. Tuncap}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 1998 Guam 13, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  12 (quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Int}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9th Cir.1993))(citation omitted).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 This case also involves issues of statutory interpretation, which are subject to }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 de novo}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  review.}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Ada v. Guam Tel. Auth.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 1999 Guam 10, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  10.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [14]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The People raise two principle arguments in this appeal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
First, that the trial court lost jurisdiction upon granting dismissal without prejudice, and thus was barred from later reconsidering its decision and ordering dismissal with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Second, that the trial court, in granting dismissal with prejudice, abused its discretion and violated the separation of powers doctrine by intruding upon the Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s prosecutorial discretion.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Defendants maintain that 
the trial court retained jurisdiction until the Notice of Appeal had been filed, and further argue that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and did not violate separation of powers.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [15]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab We thus must decide two issues: (1) whether the trial court 
had jurisdiction to enter the order dismissing the underlying proceeding with prejudice; and (2) if the court had such jurisdiction, did the court nonetheless abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 A.}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Trial Court}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Jurisdiction}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [16]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab 
The People rely on a number of local statutes in support of its argument that the trial court lost jurisdiction over this case when it issued the dismissal without prejudice order which, as discussed }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 infra}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , are completely irrelevant to this appeal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The People are aware that raising issues wholly without merit on appeal not only constitutes a waste of judicial resources, but will also result in sanctions.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This court has already sanctioned the Attorney General for filing a frivolous appeal on }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the issue of calculation of speedy trial time and has awarded damages to Appellees including attorneys fees and costs.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Such sloppy briefing will not be tolerated by this court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Office of the Attorney General is hereby are reprimanded for submitting written arguments dealing with 7 GCA }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14109, 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  130.25, 120.10 and rules of divestiture which are }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 groundless, without foundation and without merit.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In re Drexel}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Burnham Lambert Group Inc.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 995 F.2d 1138, 1147 (2d Cir.1993).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 1. Title 7 GCA }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14109}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [17]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The People rely upon Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14109 and argue that it confers upon the trial court the statutory authority to exercise jurisdiction.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 This provision states, in its entirety:}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Jurisdiction over Nonresident Defendants. A court of this Territory may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Organic Act or the Constitution of the United States.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " 
}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14109 (Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037 (2005)).}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Relying on this statute, the People argue that due process is violated when the trial court retained jurisdiction after the case was dismissed without prejudice on August 27, 2004.}{
\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [18]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab At oral argument, the People sensibly abandoned its reliance on 7 GCA }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14109.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The People clearly misinterpret 7 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14109.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 This provision is Guam}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s long-arm statute.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Cf. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd.,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 California}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s long-arm statut
e allows courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  Cal. Code Civ. Pro.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  410.10 (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 )}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 As such, it expressly governs personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .; }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 see also United States ex rel. Thistlethwaite v. Dowty Woodville Polymer, Ltd.,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 110 F.3d 861, 868 (2nd Cir. 1997) (clarifying that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
long-arm statutes govern personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ). }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [19]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Long-arm statutes are generally relied upon in determining whether the c
ourt may constitutionally assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant found outside the jurisdiction.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Long-arm statutes cannot be used to determine continuing jurisdiction based upon a court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s actions in termi
nating a case in which the court validly has personal jurisdiction over the defendants.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Furthermore, there is no question, and the People do not challenge, that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the parties in this case when the case was commenced.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The more appropriate question is whether the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s jurisdiction ceased when it entered the order dismissing the case without prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 While other statutes and principles of law may apply to the analysis of this question, section 14109 simply is not one of them.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The People}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s argument regarding section 14109 is meritless.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 2.}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Title 8 GCA }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  130.25}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [20]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab In its brief, the People also mistakenly relied on Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  130.25, but similarly conceded this contention during oral argument.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  130.25 states that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [a]n appeal taken by the government in no case stays or affects the operation of a judgment in favor of the defendant, until judgment is reversed.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  130.25 (Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037 (2005)).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 This provision is based on and is virtually identical to California Penal Code }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  1242,}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid11216411   California Penal Code }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  1242 states:  }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 An appeal taken by the people in no case stays or affects the operation of a judgment in favor of the defendant, until judgment is reversed.}{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  Cal Penal Code }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}
{\fs20\insrsid11216411  1242 (2004).}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  and has been interpreted as allowing for the discharge of a defendant and the refund of the bail money when charges have been dismissed.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The section has also been interpreted as prohibiting the government from retaining the bail money until the final determination of the case on appeal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
See People v. McRae}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 179 P.2d 3, 4 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1947) (rejecting the argument that an appeal from the dismissal order automatically stayed the judgment in favor of the defendant). }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [21]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab 
The People initially relied on section 130.25 in contending that the instant appeal does not affect the Dismissal without Prejudice Order because the People did not appeal from this decision.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 This argument lacks merit and is extraneous to the case at hand.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Section 130.25 relates to the effect of a judgment, and it is undisputed that the trial court did not issue a judgment in this matter.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 3. Title 8 GCA }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  120.10}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [22]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Finally, the People rely on Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  120.10, which states:}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 120.10. Judgment for Defendant: Discharge; Exceptions. (a) Where a general verdict is rendered or a finding by the court is made in favor of the defendant, a judgment of acquittal shall be given forthwith.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (b) Except as otherwise provided by Subsection (c) and by }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 7.28 and 7.34 of the Criminal and Correctional Code, if a judgment of acquittal is given, or a judgment imposing a fine only, and the defendant is not detained for any other legal cause, he shall be discharged, if in cust
ody, as soon as the judgment is given.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  120.10 (Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037 (2005)).}
{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 This provision also does not apply to this case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Defendants were not acquitted by a jury; therefore
, the trial court did not issue a }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 judgment of acquittal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Moreover, the trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s dismissal of the case without prejudice under Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a) did not operate as an acquittal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See People v. Norris}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 824 N.E.2d 205, 213 (Ill. 2005) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[I]t has been said that the ordinary effect of a }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle prosequi}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 is to terminate the charge to which it is entered and to permit the defendant to go wherever he pleases, without entering into a recognizance to appear at any other time.}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
If it is entered before jeopardy has attached, it does not operate as an acquittal,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  so as to prevent a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
)(quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 People v. Watson}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 68 N.E.2d 265, 266 (Ill. 1946)(emphasis added); }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 State v. Jones}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 601 A.2d 502, 504 (Vt. 1991) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [A] nol pros does not ordinarily operate as an acquittal . . . .}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 );}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  State v. Reis}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 815 A.2d 57, 65 (R.I. 2003) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 A Rule 48(a) dismissal is not an acquittal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Further, there was no }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 judgment imposing a fine only.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  120.10(b).}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In fact, there was no judgment at all.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Section 120.10 does not apply under the facts of this case, and therefore does not support the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s argument that the trial court lacked juri
sdiction to issue the dismissal with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s position on this section is groundless.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 4. Divestiture Rule}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [23]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The People conclude by arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction when the Defendants did not appeal the Dismissal without Prejudice Order.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 This argument misconstrues the rule regarding divestiture of jurisdiction.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [24]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The issue raised by the People relates to jurisdiction in the sense of the power or ability to act or rule in a case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 With regard to the power to act, this court has recognized the general rule that a trial court is divested of jurisdiction once a timely notice of appeal is filed.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Dumaliang v. Silan}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2000 Guam 24, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14; }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 402 (1982) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeal
s and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This rule is not absolute, and }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 appellate courts have recognized exceptions such as post\_
appeal motions to the trial court that are in furtherance of the appeal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Dumaliang}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2000 Guam 24 at }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14. }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [25]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Here, the trial court reta
ined jurisdiction precisely because the Defendants did not appeal the Dismissal without Prejudice Order.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See id.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 (recognizing the general rule that a trial court is divested of jurisdiction once a timely notice of appeal is filed).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Notice of Appeal in this case was filed on September 14, 2004.
}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Under the divestiture rule, the trial court only lost jurisdiction to this court after this notice of appeal was filed.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The trial court therefore had jurisdiction on September 1, 2004 when it ordered dismissal with prejudice and retained jurisdiction until September 14, 2004, when the People filed the instant appeal.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s argument on divestiture is without foundation.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 5. Authority to Reconsider}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [26]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The Defendants argue that the trial court has inherent authority to reconsider its own decisions.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
While it is correct that a trial court has the authority to reconsider prior decisions, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Guam Hous. and Urban Renewal Auth. v. Pac. Superior Enter. Corp.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2001 Guam 8 }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  13 (stating that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [i]nterlocutory orders are subject to reconsideration by the court at any time}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
), as an obvious matter this is true only while the court has jurisdiction over the case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Our concern, therefore, is whether any event occurred which would have acted to divest the lower court of jurisdiction.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 As stated earlier, the trial court was not divested of jurisdictio
n until the filing of a notice of appeal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Dumaliang v. Silan}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 2000 Guam 24, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Upon review of the record, we find that no other events occurred which had the effect of divesting the lower court of jurisdiction to enter its order of dismissal with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [27]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Furthermore, upon our independent consideration of the matter, we do not find that the filing of a request for leave to dismiss under Title 8 GCA }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a), or the lower court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s act of dismissing the case without prejudice, divested the trial court of jurisdiction to later enter its order dismissing the case with prejudice. }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [28]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Very few courts have agreed with the argument that the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s filing of a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to its power to }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nol pros}{\cs15\i\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411  }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 The term }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 nol pros}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  is also referred to in case law as }{
\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 nolle prosse }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 or }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 nolle prosequi.  Nolle prosequi}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 , translated from Latin, means }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 to be unwilling to prosecute.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Wilson v. Renfroe}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 , 91 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla. 1956).  A dismissal under Title 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid11216411  80.70(a) is derived in part from the original common law power of a prosecutor to dismiss a case pursuant to its }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 nolle prosequi}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  powers.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 See }{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 Notes, Title 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  80.70 (acknowledging that }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 [s]ection 80.70 continues the substance of a portion of former Rule 48 . . . .}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 ); }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 see United States v. Salinas}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 , 693 F.2d 348, 350-51 (5th Cir. 1982) (indicating the distinction between the common law power to }{
\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 nol pros }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 and the authority conferred under Rule 48).
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411  }{\insrsid11216411  }}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  divests the trial court of jurisdiction to dismiss a case with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [29]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab One of these courts was the District Court of Appeals for Florida in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 State v. Braden}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 375 So. 2d 49, 50 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The defendant in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Braden }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
was charged by information of the possession and sale of marijuana. }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 . at 49.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The state thereafter filed a }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle pros}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 se.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id. }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 at 50.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The trial judge refused to recognize the nolle prosse, however, and entered an order dismissing the information with prejudice}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  upon its finding }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 that the state had }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 flagrantly and intentionally}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  violated the discovery rules.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The state failed to appeal this dismissal with prejudice, but instead filed a second information charging the defendant only with possession, and not the sale, of marijuana.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The defendant moved to dismiss the second indictment.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id.}{
\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The trial court }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
construed the second information to be a collateral attack upon the dismissal with prejudice of the first information.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court dismissed the second indictment, finding that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the state}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s correct remedy should have been an appeal from the first dismissal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [30]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The state appealed, arguing that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the dismissal with prejudice of the first information was a nullity because it followed a nolle prosse of that information by the state.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Braden}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 375 So. 2d at 50.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The appellate court agreed.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The court found that the state could }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle prosse}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  a case at any time prior to the swearing in of the jury, and the state need not seek permission from the trial court.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Based on these rules, the court found that the }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle prosse}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  that was filed by the state with regard to the first information was effective.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The issue, therefore, was the effect of the dismissal with prejudice of the first information following the }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
nolle prosse}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court held that }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[a]s a general proposition, everything which occurs in a proceeding subsequent to the filing of a nolle prosse by the state is a nullity.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Accordingly, the dismissal with prejudice of 
the first information was a nullity, from which the state was not required to appeal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court further found that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [g]iven that the dismis
sal was a nullity, it was within the authority of the state to file a second information based upon the same criminal conduct that was the basis for the first information.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court accordingly reversed the dismissal with prejudice of the second information.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid11216411  Importantly, the court explained that }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 [a]lthough we are reversing the dismissal with prejudice of the second information, we do t
ake note of the events which led the lower court to dismiss the first information. Although we have ruled that dismissal was a nullity, nothing in this opinion should be construed as preventing the lower court from entering appropriate sanctions against t
he state for failure to comply with the discovery orders issued by the lower court.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\insrsid11216411   }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Braden}{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 , 375 So. 2d at 50.}}}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [31]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Braden }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 specifically held that a }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle prosse }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 effectively ends a proceeding, and therefore any action taken subsequent to the filing of the }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle prosse}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  is a nullity.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 It is implied from the holding that the }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
nolle prosse}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  of a case divests the court of the authority to take any further action in the case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The rule in Florida, however, allows for the }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle prosse }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 of a case without leave of court and is different from the rule on Guam.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 As explained by the }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Braden }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 court, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[a] nolle prosse may be filed at any time prior to the swearing in of the jury. }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Permission of the trial court is not necessary}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, because the decision to file a nolle prosse is within the sole discretion of the state.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 . (citations omitted) (emphasis added); }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 see also State v. R.J.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  763 So. 2d 370, 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [W]e hold that the trial court was without authority to accept [the defendant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s] plea of no contest after the state announced a nolle
 prosse in open court. We accordingly reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to vacate the imposition of sentence and direct the Clerk of the Court to amend its records to reflect the announcement of a nolle prosse by the state.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 );}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  Wilson}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 91 So. 2d at 859 (Fla.1956) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Under the common law of England prosecution in criminal cases were controlled by the Attorney General and he alone had the exclusive discre
tion to decide whether prosecution should be discontinued prior to the inception of jeopardy. In the absence of statute, the common law continues to be in force in most of the states of this country. Florida has adopted no statute on the subject.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411  }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 See also State v. Jackson}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
, 420 So. 2d 320, 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (referencing the statements made by the }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Wilson }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 court and further recognizing its recent unequivocal holding }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 that the State may nolle prosequi an information without the approval of the court at any time prior to the swearing in of the jury}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 ).}}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 By contrast, leave of court }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 is}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  necessary under Guam statute which governs the }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle prosse }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 power of the prosecution.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a) provides:}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (a) The prosecuting attorney may }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 with leave of court}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 file a dismissal of an indictment, information or
 complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant. The prosecuting attorney shall file a statement of his reasons for seeking dismissal when he applies for lea
ve to file a dismissal and where leave is granted the court's order shall set forth the reasons for granting such leave.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 80.70(a) (Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037(2005)) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Because leave of court is required, the dismissal under section 80.70(a) is an act of the court.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See Jackson,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  420 So. 2d at n. 2 (quoting Wharton}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s Criminal Procedure, 12th ed., section 518, wherein it is stated: }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[P]rosecutors in some jurisdictions still possess the absolute power to enter a nolle prosequi.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
In most jurisdictions, however, the decision to dismiss a pending prosecution can no longer be made by the prosecutor
 alone; the nolle prosequi as known to the common law has been abolished. The manner in which and the limitations under which the dismissal power may be exercised vary: The prosecutor may file a dismissal of an indictment or information only with the }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 consent of the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 leave of court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , or }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 permission of the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  . . . .}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 It therefore cannot be said that the court loses jurisdiction when a }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
nolle prosse }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 is filed by the People.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 But cf. Jones}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 601 A.2d at 502-04 (rejecting the argument that the State}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s dismissal of the case without prejudice under their analogous Rule 48(a) ended the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s jurisdiction to
 take any further action and dismiss the case with prejudice). }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [32]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab So long as the court retains actual jurisdiction over the case it can reconsider its prior orders.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
See Guam Hous. and Urban Renewal Auth.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2001 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  13 (}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Interlocutory orders are subject to reconsideration by the court at any time.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 We do not see any compelling reason to exclude orders granting dism
issal upon motion of the government from this rule.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Like any other decision over which the trial court possesses the authority to enter, the trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
'}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s decision granting }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 leave}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  to dismiss can be reconsidered while the case remains pending before it.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [33]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The People have not cited any authority, and we have found none, which holds that the trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s decision granting leave to dismiss without prejudice ends the matter and divests the court of jurisdiction in the same manner as does the filing of a notice of appeal.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
By contrast, even with regard to the entry of a judgment, the trial court retains the jurisdiction to vacate the judgment in certain instances.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  105.66(c)(Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037 (2005)) (}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 A motion f
or a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on a remand of the case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ); Title 8 GCA 110.30(b) (Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037 (2005)) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 If the trial was by the court without a jury the court on motion of a defendant for a new trial may vacate the judgment if entered, take additional testimony and direct the entry of a new judgment.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [34]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab We therefore hold that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction either when the People requested dismissal of the case without prejudice, 
or when the trial court ordered dismissal without prejudice on August 27, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Accordingly, the trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider its decision, and to subsequently order dismissal with prejudice on September 1, 2004.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 B.}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Dismissal of the Indictment with Prejudice}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [35]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab We must next consider whether the lower court otherwise erred, or abused its discretion, in its decision dismissing with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 With regard to this issue, we must consider: (1) whether the lower court abused it discretion in reconsidering its decision granting leave to dismiss the case without prejudice; (2) whether, under 8 GCA }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a), the lower court was permitted to }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 dismiss the case with prejudice upon the finding that the People acted in bad faith; and (3) whether the lower court was required to give forewarning prior to dismissing the case with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 1.}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Reconsideration}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [36]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Gutierrez and Cruz argue that the lower court had the authority to reconsider any decisi
on previously made in the case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Defendant Cruz further cites the law of the case doctrine, arguing that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [a]lthough the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
law of the case}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  doctrine ordinarily precludes the court from reconsidering issues decided in the same case, it does not limit the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s power and its discretion to reconsider orders it reasonably believes to have been wrong.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Cruz}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Appellee}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Br., p. 5 (May 6, 2005).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [37]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab As a general rule of discretion, rulin
gs made in a proceeding are considered the law of the case and are binding in later proceedings.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 People v. Hualde}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 1999 Guam 3, }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  13 (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [A] court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The law of the case doctrine applies to decisions made on appeal as well as decisions made at the trial court level.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
 }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
While courts are generally in accord that the law of the case doctrine applies to prevent reconsideration of an order entered by a }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 different}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  judge, }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 see}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Goldey v. Trustees of Univ. of Pa.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 675 A.2d 264, 266 (Pa. 1996) (citing the trial court}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s acknowledgment of the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
general rule that one judge should not ordinarily overrule the interlocutory decision }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 of another judge of the same court}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  in the same case}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ) (emphasis added); }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Guam Hous. and Urban Renewal Auth.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2001 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  14 (analyzing whether the trial court erred in departing from the law of the 
case where it reconsidered an earlier order granting interpleader), this court has not previously decided whether the law of the case doctrine constrains reconsideration of decisions made by the same judge in the same proceeding.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Courts are split on this issue.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [38]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Some courts hold that the law of the case doctrine does not apply}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
when the same judge is reconsidering his or her own decision.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Leoni v. Whitpain Township Zoning Hearing Bd.,
}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  709 A.2d 999, 1001 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The Supreme has . . . considered }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
the rule that a judge should not overrule a decision of another judge of the same court in the same case,}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  and reiterated the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the need for finality and the prevention of judge shopping.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 ' }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Here, the doctrine and the interests it is meant to protect are obviously not implicated, because Judge Moore took part in both decisions in question.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 )(citations omitted); }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 State v. Sharp}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 702 P.2d 959, 961 (Mont. 1985) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The policies supporting the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 law of the case}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  doctrine do not apply in a situation, such as in the case at bar, where the same judge is on the case for its duration.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 
\chftn }{\insrsid11216411  }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 The concurring justice in }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Blyther v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.,}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  661 A.2d 658, (D.C. 1995) recognized that his court had not previously }{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 decided whether the law of the case doctrine applies to prevent a judge from reconsidering his or her own prior order.}{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411   }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Id}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
. at 662. The judge rejected the proposition, and offered an explanation for why the doctrine should not apply to reconsideration of a judge}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 s own prior rulings, explaining:  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12529737 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 With respect to courts of coordinate jurisdiction, we have observed that the doctrine }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 serves the judicial system's need to dispose of cases efficiently by discouraging 'judge-shopping' and multiple attempts to prevail on a single question.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411   In the single-judge situation, the concern of judge-shopping is, of course, not present.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 . . . 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
Judges are constantly reexamining their prior rulings in a case on the basis of new information or argument, or just fresh thoughts....}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid11216411  It is both appropriate and ultimately efficient to permit the judge to act upon such new thoughts, in that it is likely to yield a more accurate result earlier than would be permitted as the result of an appeal. }{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 No one will suggest that [a] judge himself may not change his mind and overrule his own order....}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  Therefore, I would hold that the law of the case doctrine is no bar to a judge revising or reversing his or her own decisions.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 , 661 A.2d at 662 -63 (Ruiz, concurring) (citations omitted).}}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
By contrast, other courts do recognize application of the doctrine to preclude reconsideration of orders entered by the same judge.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 As was explained by one court, }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [t]here are two distinct situations where the law of the case doctrine is applicable.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 First, a court ordinarily will not reconsider its own decision made at an earlier stage of the trial or on a prior appeal, absent cl
ear and convincing reasons to reexamine the prior ruling.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Second, an inferior court must apply the decision of a superior appellate tribunal on remand.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "
 }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 680 F.2d 527, 532 (7th Cir. 1982)(citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 accord Casey v. Planned Parenthood,}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 14 F.3d 848, 856 n.11 (3d Cir.1994) (stating that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
law of the case rules apply to }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 subsequent rulings by the same judge in the same case}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  or a closely re
lated one, to rulings by different judges at the same level, or to the consequences of the failure to preserve an issue for appeal}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ) (emphasis added); }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Chun v. Bd. of Trustees,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  992 P.2d 127, 136 (Haw. 2000) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The phrase }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 law of the case}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  has been used, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 inter alia,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  to refer to }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the usual practice of courts to refuse to disturb all prior rulings in a particular case, including rulings made by the judge himself.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '"}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
) (quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Wong v. City and County of Honolulu,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  665 P.2d 157, 162 (Haw. 1983)). }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [39]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab 
It is clear, however, that courts accepting the applicability of the doctrine in reconsidering orders made by the same judge have harmonized the law of the case doctrine with the general rule regarding reconsideration.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Williams v. Comm}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 r of Internal Revenue,}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  1 F.3d 502, 503 (7th Cir. 1993) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
If the same judge had handled the case throughout, the law of the case doctrine would not have prevented him from reversing himself, unless the time for reconsideration had expired.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Thus, whether or not proceeding under law of the case doctrine, a judge is nonetheless constrained by principles governing reconsideration.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 As was elucidated by the Seventh Circuit: }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Controversy over the doctrine of law of the case properly focuses on its invocation by a judge asked to change a previous ruling of his in a case, or by judges asked to change a previous ruling by a coordinate (as distinct from superior) court in a case. 
}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In these, the only interesting applications of the doctrine, it is a doctrine about reconsideration.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  That is how it normally is expressed. Here is a typical formulation: }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
a court will ordinarily not reconsider its own decision made at an earlier stage of the trial or on a prior appeal, absent clear and convincing reasons to reexamine the prior ruling.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  680 F.2d 527, 532 (7th Cir.1982).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Johnson v. Burken,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  930 F.2d 1202, 1207 (7th Cir. 1991)(emphasis added)(citations omitted).}{\insrsid6847412 

\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [40]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Whether or not the issue is precisely one of departing from the law of the
 case, the underlying inquiry nonetheless focuses on whether the trial court was acting appropriately in reconsidering the prior decision.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
 The interconnectedness of the law of the case doctrine and the rules governing reconsideration was expressed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which stated:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 Law of the case does not . . . have the inexorable effect of 
}{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 res judicata}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
 and does not preclude the court from reconsidering an earlier ruling if the court feels that the ruling was probably erroneous and more harm would be done by adhering to the earlier rule than from the delay incident to a reconsideration
 and the possible change in the rule of law to be applied.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
  In fact, it has been noted that, so long as a trial court retains jurisdiction, it }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 always has the power to
 reexamine, modify, vacate, correct and reverse its prior rulings and orders.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Chun,}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  992 P.2d at 136 (citations omitted).  
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 Similarly, in }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Avitia v. Metro. Club of Chicago, Inc.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  49 F.3d 1219, 1227 (7th Cir. 1995)
, the court squarely addressed the question of }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
whether the doctrine of law of the case precluded the judge from changing his ruling.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  The court explained that: 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411 The d
octrine of law of the case establishes a presumption that a ruling made at one stage of a lawsuit will be adhered to throughout the suit.  But it is no more than a presumption, one whose strength varies with the circumstances; it is not a straitjacket.  O
n
e of the circumstances is the hierarchical relation between the court that rendered the questioned ruling and the court asked to reconsider it. If the original ruling was by a higher court, the lower court will be required by the most elementary sense of 
s
tare decisis to adhere to the ruling unless the reasons for departure are truly compelling, such as a contrary ruling by a still higher court.  But if the ruling in question was by the same court (and regardless of whether the same judge or panel or a pre
vious judge or panel of that court made the ruling), the duty of adherence is less rigid. }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 
A judge may reexamine his earlier ruling (or the ruling of a judge previously assigned to the case, or of a previous panel if the doctrine is invoked at the appellate 
level) if he has a conviction at once strong and reasonable that the earlier ruling was wrong, and if rescinding it would not cause undue harm to the party that had benefitted from it.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid11216411   
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Avitia}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 , 49 F.3d at 1227 (citations omitted)(emphasis added). }}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Similar standards apply in granting reconsideration or in departing from the law of the case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Under the law of the case doctrine, issues previously decided may not be reconsidered, and are binding, unless an exception to the doctrine applies.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 A court m
ay depart from the law of the case where: }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; 2) an intervening change in the law has occurred; 3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; 4) other changed circumstances exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Failure to apply the doctrine of the law of the case absent one of the requisite conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Hualde}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 1999 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 13 (citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 see also}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Lujan v. Lujan}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2002 Guam 11, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  7.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [41]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Similarly, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[t]his court has adopted three prongs to justify reconsideration: }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 wh
ere the trial court: (1) is presented with new evidence; (2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '" }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Petition of Quitugua v. Flores}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2004 Guam 19, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  38 (quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Ward v. Reyes, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 1998 Guam 1, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  10)(reviewing the grant of reconsideration pursuant to GRCP 59(e)) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [42]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab 
We find that the trial court in the present case did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering its first order dismissing the case without prejudice under either the law of the case doctrine }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 or}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  the rules governing reconsideration.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See Guam Hous. and Urban Renewal Auth.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2001 Guam 8 at }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 13-15 (reviewing the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s decision to reconsider a prior order in light of the law of the case doctrine for an abuse of discretion).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In its order dismissing the case with prejudice, the lower court stated that its decision was based on a finding that the People acted in bad faith in stating 
that it lacked the resources to prosecute cases which were not violent crimes.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This rationale falls within the exception to the law of the case doctrine that a prior decision may be reconsidered if }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 changed circumstances exist,}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  or a }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 manifest injustice would otherwise result.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Hualde}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 1999 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  13;}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  see also Guam Hous. and Urban Renewal Auth.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 2001 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  15 (determining that the party}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s position regarding its surety status affected the earlier decision granting interpleader, and that the trial court correctly determined that the party}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s change in position regarding its surety status constituted a }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 change o
f circumstances warranting its reconsideration of the order granting interpleader}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  entered previously by a different judge).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The conclusion is similarly warranted under the general principles governing reconsideration.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s basis for reconsidering its order of dismissal without prejudice falls within the ground justifying reconsideration where there is }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 new evidence}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  or the earlier decision was }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 manifestly unjust.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Quitugua}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2004 Guam 19 at }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  38 (quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Ward}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 1998 Guam 1 at }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  10).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in revisiting its order denying the case without prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 2.}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Authority under Title 8 GCA }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a)}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [43]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab We must next decide whether, under 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a), the lower court was permitted to dismiss the case with prejudice }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  upon the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s finding that the People acted in bad faith.}{\b\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid6847412\charrsid12344356 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 a)}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The People}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Motion to Dismiss }{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [44]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab On August 4, 2004, the People filed a Contingent Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice in the trial court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER, tab 2, p. 1 (Contingent Mot. to Dismiss without Prejudice).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The contingent nature stems from the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s request that the motion be withdrawn and the case proceed to trial if the trial court were to dismiss with prejudice.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER, tab 2, p. 1 (Contingent Mot. to Dismiss without Prejudice).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Motion explained that the Office of the Attorney General }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 does }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 not}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  have current sufficient resources with attorneys or investigators to go forward at the present time.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}
{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER,
 tab 2, p. 1 (Contingent Mot. to Dismiss without Prejudice). The Motion further detailed that attorneys were leaving the office and that contracts for other attorneys had been invalidated.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 For this reason, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [t]h
e lack of resources requires that the Office prioritize the cases currently before it and handle those first that most seriously impact the safety of citizens of Guam, such as homicides and violent crimes.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER, tab 2, p. 2 (Contingent Mot. to Dismiss without Prejudice).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [45]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Although the Motion cites no authority, statutory or otherwise, as the basis for making a contingent}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
motion, during the August 27, 2004 hearing on pre-trial motions, the prosecutor explained the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
contingent}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  nature of the motion, stating that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the case law is such that the Court needs to advise us of the consequences of such a dismissal, and that if it is considering such, then give us the opportunity to withdraw the motion.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Transcript (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Tr.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ), vol. 2, p. 8 (Hr}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 g on Mot., Aug. 4, 2004).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [46]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The pertinent statute with regard to criminal dismissals is Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70, which states in its entirety:}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
(a) The prosecuting attorney may with leave of court file a dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal ma
y not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant. The prosecuting attorney shall file a statement of his reasons for seeking dismissal when he applies for leave to file a dismissal and where leave is granted the court's order shall set
 forth the reasons for granting such leave.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
(b) If there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court, on its own motion, may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint. The reasons for the dismissal shall be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes.}{
\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (c) The court on its own motion may dismiss a prosecution pursuant to }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  7.67 of the Criminal and Correctional Code.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70 (Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037(2005).}{
\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [47]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab During the August 27, 2004 hearing, the trial court referred to 8 GCA}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a), asking the prosecutor, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Isn}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 t first you}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 re asking for leave to file a dismissal?}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 
\chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 In addition, defense attorneys pointed out that 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
 80.70 applied to the People}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 s motion.  The attorney for Cruz stated, }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 [W]e agree with the Court that }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
 80.70 does control in this case and there is really, Your Honor, no such thing as a contingent motion to dismiss.  Either the Government is moving to dismiss or not.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411   Tr., vol. 2, p. 10 (Hr}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
g on Mot., Aug. 4, 2004).  The attorney for Perez also agreed, saying }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 Under }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  80.70(a) they ask for leave of Court to file the dismissal and then the Court will either grant that leave and dismiss with or without prejudice.}{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411   Tr., vol. 2, p. 11 (Hr}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 g on Mot., Aug. 4, 2004).}}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Tr., vol. 2, p. 9 (Hr}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 g on Mot., Aug. 4, 2004).}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Accordingly, in its August 18, 2004, Memorandum on Dismissal without Prejudice, the People cited 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a) as the basis for its dismissal motion.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 Because the motion is based on 8 GCA }{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  80.70(a), it is necessary to reconcile the }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 contingent}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  nature of the People}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
s request (that the motion be withdrawn depending on the type of dismissal), with the procedure whereupon the motion is simply submitted to the court for its consideration.  As a general rule, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice.  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 See }{\scaps\fs20\insrsid11216411 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Crim. }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid11216411  811 (3d ed. 2004).}}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER, tab 3, p. 2 (People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Mem. on Dismissal without Prejudice). }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 b) Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [48]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab This case presents the first instance for the interpretation of 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a) by this court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Section 80.70(a) is modeled, in part, after Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 The federal source is acknowledged in the Compiler}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 s Notes, which state that }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 [s]ection 80.70 continues the substance of a portion of former Rule 48 . . . .}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411   Notes, 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  80.70.}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  which states:}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (a) By the Government.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (b) By the Court.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  The court may dismiss an indictmen
t, information, or complaint if unnecessary delay occurs in:}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (1) }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 presenting a charge to a grand jury;}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (2)}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  filing an information against a defendant; or}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (3)}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  bringing a defendant to trial.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Fed. R. Crim. P. 48.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 i.}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Purpose of Rule 48(a)}{\b\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412\charrsid12344356 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [49]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The seminal case discussing Rule 48(a) is }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rinaldi v. United States}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 434 U.S. 22, 98 S. Ct. 81 (1977), where the Government filed a Rule 48(a) motion seeking leave to dismiss federal charges against the defendant, who had already been convicted in state court, in violation of the }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Petite}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  policy against multiple prosecutions for the same act.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See Petite v. United States}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S. Ct. 450 (1960).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The federal district court in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rinaldi }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
denied the motion and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rinaldi}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 434 U.S. at 23-24, 98 S. Ct. at 82-83.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the case be remanded for the purpose of dismissing the federal indictment.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rinaldi}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 434 U.S. at 32, 98 S. Ct. at 86.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Court interpreted the rule as follows:}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The principal object of the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 leave of court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 e.g.
}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s objection.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rinaldi}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 434 U.S. at 29 n. 15, 80 S. Ct. at 85 n. 15.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [50]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The leave of court requirement was recognized as investing some discretion in the trial court when ruling on the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This requirement was a departure from the common law right of the prosecutors to enter a }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 nolle prosequi}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  and dismiss the case without first seeking leave of the court.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\scaps\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Crim. }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  812 (3d ed. 2004). }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ii.}{\b\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Presumption of good faith and rebuttal by showing of bad faith}
{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [51]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Under Rule 48(a), the prosecutor is recognized as having a presumption of good faith in bringing the motion.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Court in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rinaldi }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 determined that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [t]he salient issue . . . is not whether the decision to maintain the federal prosecution was made in bad faith but rather whether the Government}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s later efforts to terminate the prosecution were similarly tainted with impropriety.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rinaldi}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 434 U.S. at 30, 98 S. Ct. at 85.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s good or bad faith }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
in bringing the motion}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  is the determining}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 factor in granting or denying the motion.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Ass}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 n}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 228 F.Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), the court recognized that in recommending dismissal, there is a }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 presumption that [the prosecutor] is acting in good faith and in the proper discharge of his duties.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [52]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The circuit courts have 
universally held that the prosecution is entitled to a presumption of good faith when bringing a Rule 48(a) motion, and the motion should generally be granted as a matter of course.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
United States v. Dyal}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 868 F.2d 424, 428 (11th Cir. 1989) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
We conclude that, in the dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint under Rule 48(a), the government is entitled to a presumption of good-faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ); }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 693 F.2d at 352 (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[T]his Court begins with the presumption that the prosecutor acted in good faith in moving to dismiss the first indictment.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ); }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
United States v. Palomares}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 119 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 1997) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
the United States attorney is entitled to a presumption}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 that its motions to dismiss are grounded in good faith}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ); }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Hayden}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 860 F.2d 1483, 1488 (9th Cir. 1988) (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [W]hen the government requests a Rule 48(a) dismissal in good faith, the district court is duty bound to honor the request.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [53]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The presumption, however, is not absolute.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 presumption [of good faith] is rebutted upon}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 a showing of a lack of good faith.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 693 F.2d at 352.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  credited the prosecutor with good faith and granted dismissal without prejudice, and the prosecutor sought a second indictment a week later.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 693 F.2d at 352-53 (footnote omitted).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 However, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [i]t was not until the arraignment of the second indictment that the lack of good faith on the part of the Government first became evident.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 693 F.2d at 352.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The only reason ever proffered for dismissal was the prosecutor}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s dissatisfaction with the jury, and the court stated that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [i]t is apparent, therefore, that the Government used Rule 48(a) to gain a position of advantage or to escape from a position of less advantage in which the Government found itself as the result of its own election.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id. }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 at 353 (internal quotation marks omitted).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court determined there was }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the Government made the motion to dismiss in good faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  
}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court criticized the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s action, stating:}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 After the district court placed its confidence in the Government by granting the motion to dismiss the indictment, the Government}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s lack of good faith became evident.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Because of the improper motives of the Government in moving to dismiss the first indictment, the conviction is reversed.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [54]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Under }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the key factor in a determination of prosecutorial harassment is the propriety or impropriety of the Government}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s efforts to terminate the prosecution--the good faith or lack of good faith of the Government in moving to dismiss. The Government must not be motivated by considerations }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 clearly contrary to the public interest.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '"}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  at 351.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Once bad faith in bringing the motion is found, the court may conclude that the prosecutor}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s actions would result in harassment, thereby warranting the denial of the government}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion to dismiss.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Courts similarly equate a finding of bad faith to a finding that the dismissal was not within the public interest.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Eighth Circuit has held that a district court must }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 grant the motion [to dismiss] unless the dismissal }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 would be clearly contrary to manifest public interest, determined by whether the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion to dismiss was made in bad faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '"}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 States v. Rush}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 240 F.3d 729, 730 (8th Cir. 2001)(quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Goodson}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 
204 F.3d 508, 512 (4th Cir. 2000)).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [55]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The Fifth Circuit}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s reversal in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  was not lightly given, for the court acknowledged the}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 presumption due to the government in seeking dismissal, and concisely art
iculated the rule as follows:}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The presumption that the prosecutor is the best judge of the public interest is rebutted when the motion to dismiss contravenes the public interest because it is not made in good faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
In such a case, Rule 48(a) mandates that the court deny the Government's motion to dismiss the indictment: }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 under the discretion yielded to [the court] by 48(a) to }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
check [an] abuse of Executive prerogative,}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  the court can and must deny the motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 693 F.2d at 352 (quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In re Washington,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  544 F.2d 203, 209 (5th Cir. 1976)(en banc), }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 rev}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 d on other grounds,}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rinaldi v. United States}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 434 U.S. 22, 98 S. Ct. 81 (1977) (citation omitted)).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 iii. Separation of Powers issues}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [56]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab As recognized by the }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  court and as argued by the People herein, however, the court}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s discretion in granting or denying dismissals impacts certain powers of the executive branch, and specifically the Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s prosecutorial discretion.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Rule was not promulgated to shift absolute power from the Executive to the Judicial Branch.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rather, it was intended as a power to check power.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The Executive remains the absolute judge of whether a prosecution should be initiated and the first and presumptively the best judge of whether a pending prosecution should be terminated.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Smith}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 55 F.3d 157, 158-59 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Cowan}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 524 F.2d 504, 513 (5th Cir. 1975)).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [57]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab It is undisputed that a trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s evaluation of dismissals pursuant to Rule 48(a) is narrow. }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court is limited to assessing whether the government}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion is contrary to manifest public interest because it is not based on the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s good faith discharge of her duties.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Jacobo-Zavala}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 241 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2001).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Accordingly, dismissals implicate the separation of powers doctrine, because }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[t]he decision to indict, allege specific charges, or dismiss charges is inherently an exercise of executive power, and the prosecutor has broad discretion in these matters.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The executive can choose not to prosecute one case, yet prosecute vigorously another involving the same issues.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United Stats v. Martin}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 287
 F.3d 609,623 (7th Cir. 2002)(citations omitted).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [58]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab 
The People argue that when it is acting lawfully and within its constitutional and statutory authority, the court cannot interfere with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion without violating separation of powers.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The People rely on a number of cases that emphasize the presumption of good faith to support this assertion.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 
'}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s interpretation of these cases, however, fail to recognize the essential element of the presumption, namely, that the government must have been acting in good faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Moreover, it is apparent that the trial court here, as in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , applied the presumption of good faith.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [59]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab In the Dismissal without Prejudice Order, the trial court rejected the Defendants}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 arguments of bad faith, stating that the possibility of reindictment after dismissal }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the request was made to harass the defendants.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s ER, tab 6, p. 3 (Decision & Order In Re: Dismissal with Prejudice).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court further found that the inference that reindictment was possible was }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 inadequate to overcome the presumption that the People were acting in good faith in requesting dismissal.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER, tab 6, p. 3 (Decision & Order In Re: Dismissal with Prejudice).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [60]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab It was only upon the unsealing of the other pending criminal case against Gutierrez (CF0216-04), wherein Gutierrez was indicted on July 1, 2004, }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 that the lack of good faith on the part of the Government first became evident.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 693 F.2d at 352.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This indictment in a separate case is contrary to the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s assertions during the hearing that there was a lack of resources at the Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '
}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Office, and in its Memorandum that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[c]ases involving the public safety is the first and primary duty of Attorney General.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Priorities must be set and resources can only be stretched so thin.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER, tab 3, p. 4 (People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s Mem. on Dismissal without Prejudice).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The other pending criminal case did not involve public safety, as i
t was a government corruption case involving the payments received by Gutierrez from the Guam Retirement Fund.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
In addition, the trial court clearly had cause to question the candor of Prosecutor Littlepage, who stated during the August 27, 2004 hearing, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 I know of no other current indictments involving the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 any of the other defendants.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Tr., vol. 2, p. 27 (Hr}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 g on Mot., Aug. 27, 2004).}{
\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 During oral arguments, Justice }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Pro Tempore}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  Demapan candidly characterized this misrepresentation as a }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 lie.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The court also found, given that the People have not been successful in obtaining indictments that withstand pretrial scrutiny, the opportunity to reindict the Defendants would be harassment.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Appellant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ER, tab 8, p. 3 (Mem. of Decision:}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Recons. of Dismissal with Prejudice, Sept. 10, 2004).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The trial court properly considered the reasons provided by the People in support of its request to dismiss the indictment and such an inquiry is mandated by Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a).}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 During oral}{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411  }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
arguments before this court, one of the counsels stated that there are some Superior Court judges who do not require the Attorney General to submit a reason for dismissing the case pursuant to the mandates of 8 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
 80.70(a).  The law is clear that the prosecuting attorney must file a statement of his reasons for seeking dismissal and the judge, where leave is granted, must set forth the reasons for granting such leave to file a dismissal.  Judge }{
\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Pro Tempore}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  Benson obviously followed the statutory directives mandate and of course, we expect all trial judges to do the same.  }}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 c) Scope of Authority Under Title 8 GCA }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a)}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [61]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab In the instant case, the evidence of bad faith in bringing the motion are sufficient to overcome the presumption of good faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The remaining question, therefore, is whether the trial court was permitted to dismiss the case with prejudice upon its finding of bad faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The plain language of Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
80.70(a), and the analogous Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that a case may be dismissed by the government upon leave of the court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Neither rule addresses whether the court may dismiss a case with prejudice upon}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the finding of bad faith by the filing of a motion to dismiss by the government in seeking dismissal. }{
\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [62]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab We start our analysis with the text of section 80.70(a).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Sumitomo Constr. Co. v. Gov}{
\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 t of Guam}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2001 Guam 23, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  17 (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must look first to the language of the statute itself.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 That section provides: }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The prosecuting attorney may with leave of court 
file a dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The prosecuting attorney shall file a statement of his rea
sons for seeking dismissal when he applies for leave to file a dismissal and where leave is granted the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s order shall set forth the reasons for granting such leave.}{
\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The section clearly contemplates that the government request leave to dismiss from the court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 However, by its terms, the section does not allow for a }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  dismissal of the indictment with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Thi
s suggests that section 80.70(a) does not authorize courts to }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  dismiss a case with prejudice. }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [63]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Support for such an interpretation can be found by examining the language of Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(b) and (c).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Sumitomo}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2001 Guam 23 at }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  17 (
}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [I]n determining legislative intent, a statute should be read as a whole, and ther
efore, courts should construe each section in conjunction with other sections.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Those sections provide: }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (b) If there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 the court, on its own motion}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The reasons for the dismissal shall be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 (c) The court }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 on its own motion}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 may dismiss a prosecution pursuant to }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  7.67 of the Criminal and Correctional Code.}{\insrsid6847412 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(b) and (c) (emphasis added) (Westlaw through Guam Pub. L. 28-037 (2005)).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Sections 80.70(b) and (c) explicitly authorize }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 dismissal by the court under specified circumstances.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [W]ords and people are known by their companions.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Gutierrez v. Ada}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 528 U.S. 250, 255, 120 S. Ct. 740, 744 (2000).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [T]he language of the statute cannot be read in isolation, and must be examined within its context . . . A statute}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s context includes looking at other provisions of the same statute and other related statutes.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Aguon v. Gutierrez}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 2002 Guam 14, }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  9 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Compari
son of the subsections of the statute is revealing.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Had A reading of section 08.07 in its entirety reveals that if the legislature intended to allow trial courts to }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  dismiss a case under section 80.70(a), it could have expressly authorized such action as it did in sections 80.70(b) and (c).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [64]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab 
Furthermore, courts interpreting Rule 48(a) have generally recognized that the rule only provides a trial court with two options: grant or deny the motion to dismiss the indictment.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
[Q]uestions of statutory interpretation may be aided by reference to the prevailing interpretation of other statutes that share the same language and either have the same general purpose or deal with the same general subje
ct as the statute under consideration.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411   }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Aguon v. Gutierrez}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
, 2002 Guam 14, }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  11 (quoting }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Santos v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
, 525 F. Supp 655, 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)).  }}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 See Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 693 F.2d at 352 (stating that where the motion to dismiss was not brought in good faith, }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Rule 48(a) mandates that the court deny the Government}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion to dismiss the indictment: }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
under the discretion yielded to [the court] by 48(a) to }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 check [an] abuse of Executive prerogative,}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  the court can and must deny the motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '"}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ) (quoting }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In re Washington}
{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 544 F.2d at 209, }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 rev}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 d on other grounds}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 434 U.S. 22, 99 S. Ct. 81 (1977) (citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Hayden}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 860 F.2d at 1487 (}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 If the district court finds that the prosecutor is acting in good faith . . .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 it should grant the motion; conv
ersely, Rule 48(a) empowers the district court to exercise its discretion in denying the motion when it specifically determines that the government is operating in bad faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ).}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The purpose of the rule is to prevent harassment of the defendant and to protect the public interest and should not be interpreted as a means for courts to intrude on the executive}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s traditional realm of authority.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [65]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Some courts, however, have concluded that the }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
dismissal of a case with prejudice is warranted under limited circumstances.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Derr}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
, 726 F.2d 617, 618 (10th Cir. 1984), the defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 On the day of trial,
 the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 48(a), claiming, without explanation, that dismissal would be in the interest of justice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id.}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }
{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The trial court dismissed the indictment without prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Thereafter, the prosecutor obtained a second indictment on the same charges.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }
{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court erred in granting the first dismissal where the prosecutor offered no reasons to support its motion.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id.}{\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The trial court agreed that it abused its discretion in granting the motion without }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 receiving a factual basis,}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  and granted the defendant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 T
he prosecutor appealed, arguing that the rule does not require the prosecutor to give reasons for seeking an indictment.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [66]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab On appeal, the court held that the primary purpose of the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 leave of court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  requirement is to }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 prevent harassment of a defendant by a prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s charging, dismissing, and recharging the defendant with a crime.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Derr}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 726 F.2d at 619.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court found that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 to honor the purpose of the rule, the trial court at the very least must know the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s reasons for seeking to dismiss the indictment and the facts underlying the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s decision.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court further stated that an order gr
anting dismissal of the indictment without prejudice may be reviewed after the government secures a second indictment against the defendant.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
. On the precise issue of whether the trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 remedy}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 dismissing the second indictment, in effect altering the first dismissal to one with prejudice}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
was appropriate,}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 ., the court affirmed.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
In seeking the first dismissal, the government explained its reasoning to be for the purpose of continuing the investigation due to dissatisfaction with the state of the investigation thus far.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
The court on appeal determined that based on this reasoning, the trial court would have been required to deny the government}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion to dismiss, and, therefore, }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 rema
nding the case for a determination whether the government had valid reasons for dismissing the original indictment would be fruitless.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court further explained:}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Moreover, if the trial court had initially ruled correctly and refused to dismiss the original indictment, the government}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s only alternatives would have been to try a case in which it was obviously unprepared to proceed or to move to dismiss the indictment with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Thus, we do not regard the trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s remedy as unduly harsh.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Under the circumstances, dismissing the second indictment was the only sanction that would effectuate the primary purpose of Rule 48(a).}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 . (emphasis added).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [67]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab A similar result was reached by the Fifth Circuit in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , discussed }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 supra}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 693 F.2d 348. In }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , the court held that a finding of bad faith by the government may warrant dismissal of a conviction had on a later indictment.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This result was reached due to the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s finding that it }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 has no choice but to vindicate the purpose of Rule 48(a) to protect the defendant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s rights.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 693 F.2d at 353.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Thus, the court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s decision that a finding of bad faith in bringing the first motion to dismiss may support dismissal of the second indictment and conviction was based on the need to preserve the purpose of Rule 48(a) which is to protect the defendant from harassment.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The harassment identified is the }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
charging, dismissing, and recharging without placing the defendant in jeopardy.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 . at 351 (quoting }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 United States v. Cox}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965)).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [68]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Finally, it is important to reconcile a trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s power to dismiss under section 80.70(a) with the notion that the power to prosecute rests with the executive.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 State v. Braunsdorf}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , 297 N.W.2d 808 (Wis. 1980), the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the argument that trial courts have inherent authority to dismiss a case with prejudice for a failure to prosecute.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court reasoned that although judicial economy weighed in favor of inherent authority, }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 a dismissal in a criminal case has broader implications for society as a whole.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id.}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  at 816.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court found that where }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
the defendant}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s constitutional rights are not implicated . . . the competing interests involved are the need of the court to have a remedy for the sort of conduct shown here by the assistant dis
trict attorney, as well as to exercise control over its calendar, and that of society to be secure from crime through the regular enforcement of the criminal laws.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id.}{
\i\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The court concluded that }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
[t]he balance weighs heavily in favor of society}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s interests}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 and held that trial courts did not have inherent authority to dismiss criminal cases with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Id.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [69]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Based on the text of section 80.70(a), the statute in its entirety and relevant caselaw we hold that, as a general rule, section 80.70(a) does not authorize trial courts to }
{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  dismiss indictments with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 T
he interests of the court in managing its business, the interest in protecting a defendant against harassment, and the interest in preserving the prosecutorial discretion is best furthered by a rule which allows a trial court to deny, but not dismiss with
 prejudice, a prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s motion to dismiss under section 80.70(a) where the court finds that the prosecutor was acting in bad faith.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 This interpretation maintains the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s ability to try a case in which it deems worthy of prosecution while concurrently protecting the defendant}
{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s interest in being spared the harassment of a dismissal and reindictment of the charges.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 A
n exception occurs when a trial court grants a motion to dismiss without prejudice and later discovers that the earlier motion was made in bad faith; under these limited circumstances the trial court may dismiss the indictment with prejudice after a subse
quent indictment.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{
\insrsid11216411   }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 Dismissal of the re-filed case makes particular sense where a defendant is later indicted subsequent to a dismissal without prejudice under section 80.70(a).  In such case, as was the case in }{
\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Derr }{\fs20\insrsid11216411  and }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Salinas}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 , if this earlier dismissal
 was pursuant to a motion later found to have been brought in bad faith, then the only way to vindicate the defendant}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
s rights to be free from harassment is to dismiss the later case with prejudice.  By being cha
rged with a second indictment, the defendant has actually suffered the harassment which was meant to be protected against in the grant of leave to dismiss the first indictment.  Because the harassment has already occurred due to an error in granting the f
irst motion to dismiss, the only way to vindicate the defendant}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
s rights under section 80.70(a) is to dismiss the later indictment.  }}}{\b\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [70]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab Under the general rule, the trial court in this case would not have had the authority to }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
 dismiss the case with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 However, in light of the unique posture of the case before the Superior Court, we find the trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s action to be justified.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Specifically, the trial court made a finding of bad faith based on the misrepresentations made by the prosecution, summarized }
{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 supra}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , and we give deference to his findings.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 A trial court}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 s finding of bad faith is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 LaSalle Nat. Bank v. First Connecticut Holding Group, LLC.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 , 287 F.3d 279, 288 (3rd Cir. 2002).  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 See also Guam Imaging Consultants, Inc. v. Guam Mem}{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 l Hosp. Auth.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
, 2004 Guam 15, }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  15 (reviewing a trial court}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 s finding of fact for clear error).  There is nothing in the record which }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 produces a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a mistake.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411   }{
\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  at }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411  30 (citations omitted).     }}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The trial court could not deny the motion to dismiss because the court had already dismissed the case for the prosecution}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s failure to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Similar to the situation in }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Salinas}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 , remanding the 
case for the trial court to deny the motion to dismiss because of the government}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s bad faith in seeking dismissal would be fruitless.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Furthermore, the trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 made an additional finding that any future indictments of the defendants in this case would constitute harassment.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The fact that this case could not have proceeded any further makes it unnecessary to pursue this matter any further.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\insrsid11216411   }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
 While not determinative, we note that the Assistant Attorney General conceded during oral arguments that there were }{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 
no plans to reindict the case.}{\fs20\insrsid11216411 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f37\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid11216411   }}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [71]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab We also take this opportunity to express our concerns with the Office of the Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s conduct both at the trial and appellate levels.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In a span of eight months from November 3, 2003 to July 
7, 2004, a total of sixteen indictments including three superseding indictments were returned against the defendants in this case.}{\cs15\super\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid11216411 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid11216411  The following facts are set forth }{\i\fs20\insrsid11216411 supra }{
\fs20\insrsid11216411 pp. 3-6.   }}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Five were against Mrs. Perez, four were against Mr. Gutierrez, four were against Mr. Guzman, and three were against Mr. Cruz.}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 In addition, early on in the prosecution of this case, all four defendants asserted their constitutional right to a speedy trial.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The record also shows that the trial court ordered dismissal of the indictments a total of six times, five of which were }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 without prejudice}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 "}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  and the last, which is the subject of this appeal}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 was }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 One of the dismissals granted by the trial court was based on the Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s failure to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury. }{
\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [72]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab At the appellate level, the Attorney General advanced arguments in its brief and during oral arguments that are irrelevant and extraneous to the case }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sub judice}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Furthermore, the Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s Office consistently argued that the reason provided}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 to the lower court in support of its request to dismiss the instant indictment - that is, the Office}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s lack of resources }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 should never have been considered by the trial court in}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 its decision to dismiss the case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 To stand before this court and insist that the reason provided by the Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s Office should not have been considered}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 in the decision-making process would be akin to holding that the trial court must disregard the mandate of section 80.70(a).}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Clearly, in order to make an informed decision, the trial court judge had to consider the specific reason to dismiss the case, as submitted by the Attorney General.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The Attorney General}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s argument is disingenuous at best.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Finally, the Attorney General has}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 pursued this appeal,}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 despite statements 
made by the Assistant Attorney General during oral arguments that there are }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
no plans to reindict the case.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 " }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Such conduct, considered in the aggregate, constitutes a continuing course of bad faith.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [73]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab 
Based on these findings, the Office of the Attorney General is again reprimanded for wasting limited judicial resources and for forcing the defendants to face the anxiety of criminal charges when the Office of the Atto
rney General had no intention, notwithstanding the dismissal with prejudice by the trial court, to reindict the Defendants to the fullest extent of the law.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 3. Whether Forewarning is Required}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [74]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab The People argue that section 80.70(a) requires trial courts to give a forewarning before }{
\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 dismissing a case with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 We need not address whether forewarning is required under Title 8 GCA }
{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a) based on our holding that trial courts may only grant 
or deny a motion to dismiss an indictment without prejudice brought in bad faith. In the instant case, on the same day that the trial court granted the People}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s motion to dismiss without prejudice, which was later reconsidered, the trial court granted the a motion to dismiss the indictment against the Defendants based on the prosecutor}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s failure to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Therefore, because the government could}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
not proceed with the prosecution, any forewarning given by the trial court would have been futile to the government}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 s efforts to prosecute under the indictment.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 IV.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\insrsid6847412 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12344356 {\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 [75]}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 \tab We hold that the trial co
urt had jurisdiction to reconsider its order dismissing the underlying indictment without prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
Furthermore, we hold that the options available to a court upon a finding of bad faith by the prosecution in bringing a Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a) motion are to either grant or deny the motion.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 Although Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f37\fs24}}}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  80.70(a) does not authorize trial courts to }{\i\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 sua sponte}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412  dismiss a}{
\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 proceeding with prejudice upon a finding of bad faith, the trial court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s action in this case was justified given the unique posture of the case before the trial court.}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 The lower court}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412 '}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
s decision is }{\b\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 .}{\insrsid6847412\charrsid6847412  }{\insrsid11216411\charrsid6847412 
This case is remanded for the entry of judgment dismissing the underlying proceeding against the Defendants with prejudice.}{\insrsid6847412 
\par }}