People of Guam v Superior Court of Guam [1998] GUSC 22; 1998 Guam 24 (20 November 1998)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Supreme Court Case No. WRM98-005

) Superior Court Case No. CF0081-96

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM, )

) OPINION

Respondent, )

)

vs. )

)

BEAU BRUNEMAN, )

)

Real Party In Interest. )

______________________________)

Filed: November 20, 1998

Cite as: 1998 Guam 24

Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Argued and Submitted on November 4, 1998
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for the Petitioner: Appearing for the Real Party in Interest:

Thomas J. Fisher, Esq. Rawlen M.T. Mantanona, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Suite 102, First Savings & Loan Bldg.

Office of the Attorney General 655 S. Marine Drive

Prosecution Division Tamuning, Guam 96911

Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Bldg.
Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS and BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Associate Justices.

SIGUENZA, C.J.:

[1] This matter came before the court on a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus wherein the Petitioner sought relief from the trial court=s exclusion of forensic hair comparison evidence in the Superior Court case of People v. Bruneman, CF0081-96. The Superior Court of Guam, Respondent, filed no response to the petition; however, Beau Bruneman, the Real Party in Interest, responded in objection to the petition, asserting the court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ in this matter and even if jurisdiction does lie, the evidence should be excluded. The court, having reviewed the petition and response and hearing oral arguments, made an oral majority ruling granting the peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial court to admit such evidence at trial. This opinion memorializes the court=s oral ruling.

BACKGROUND

[2] Beau Bruneman, Defendant and Real Party in Interest (hereinafter Bruneman), was indicted on February 22, 1996 for aggravated murder pursuant to 9 GCA ' 16.30(a)(1) (1993) and first degree criminal sexual conduct, as a first degree felony pursuant to 9 GCA ' 25.15(a)(1) and (b) (1993). The charges arose from the death of a four-year old girl, who was raped, sodomized and asphyxiated by manual strangulation. Crime scene evidence revealed pubic hairs in the victim=s bed, the trash bag in which she was placed, and in her anal vault. The hairs were analyzed by the Hair and Fibers Unit of the crime laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The analysis yielded findings that the hairs were found to be inconsistent with those originating from the victim=s father and consistent with Bruneman. The People sought to admit such evidence and accordingly filed a motion in limine. The sequence of events which occurred in relation to the People=s motion in limine is unclear. However, we can glean from the record and from oral arguments that the following occurred: the People filed a motion in limine on September 29, 1997, a hearing on that motion was held on November 14, 1997 and the matter was taken under advisement, Bruneman filed a motion to exclude the hair evidence on August 13, 1998, a further hearing was held on September 24, 1998. Jury selection began on October 8, 1998. As a result of the September 24, 1998 hearing on the issue, the trial court issued a written decision and order on October 13, 1998 excluding the hair comparison evidence. The People filed with this court an emergency motion to stay the proceedings. This court denied the motion based on a lack of jurisdiction to consider the matter on appeal. The People then brought this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking vacation of the trial courts exclusion of the forensic hair comparison evidence.

ANALYSIS

I. Jurisdiction

[3] This court has jurisdiction over original proceedings for writs pursuant to 7 GCA '' 3107(b), 31202, 31203 and 31401 (1994). Whether a writ of mandamus should issue in a particular case is reviewed de novo by the court. Guam Publications, Inc. v. Superior Court, 1996 Guam 6, & 8. AMandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy employed in extreme situations.@ Id. at & 10. (citations omitted). Such relief is only used to "confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so." Id. (citations omitted). The petitioner bears the burden of justifying the issuance of a writ. People v. Superior Court of Guam (Quint), 1997 Guam 7, & 7. Issuance of a writ is discretionary. 7 GCA ' 31401. Acknowledging that writ practice is an equitable function,

However, it is Bruneman=s contention that this court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ in this case pursuant to the statutory mandates of 7 GCA '' 31202 and 31203. Furthermore, Bruneman seeks to have the court consider California case law as controlling on the issue because the legislative history of section 31202[1] indicates the statute was adopted from California. In support of this assertion, Bruneman calls to the court