Background
Philips James Sablan was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct arising from allegations that he touched an underage girl, M.T.G. The same prosecution also charged indecent exposure, but the jury acquitted him on that count. Before trial, Sablan formally requested notice of any other-acts evidence the People intended to use under Guam Rule of Evidence 404(b). The prosecution did not respond. Its pretrial investigation nevertheless included allegations from M.T.G. about conduct beyond the incident charged in the indictment.
At trial, the prosecutor told jurors in opening statements that M.T.G. would describe other incidents, elicited testimony suggesting repeated touching, and asked M.T.G. about acts beyond the charged offense. The Superior Court eventually struck the testimony after a four-day recess, finding it inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial, and instructed the jury to disregard it. After the guilty verdict, the trial court granted Sablan a new trial because the delayed withdrawal could not reliably erase the testimony’s effect. In 2023, however, the Supreme Court of Guam reversed that order in People v. Sablan, 2023 Guam 4, referred to in the new opinion as Sablan I. On remand, the Superior Court reinstated the conviction and imposed five years of incarceration, leading to this appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Guam overruled Sablan I. Justice Katherine A. Maraman, writing for a unanimous panel, concluded that the earlier decision was clearly erroneous and that enforcing it would work a manifest injustice. The court held that M.T.G.’s testimony about uncharged conduct fell within GRE 404(b), which governs evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Because Sablan had requested notice and the People supplied none, the testimony was inadmissible. The court emphasized that a prosecutor must identify an intended non-propensity use and comply with the rule’s notice requirement before introducing such evidence.
The court also rejected the People’s argument that providing the underlying information in discovery amounted to notice. Discovery may tell the defense that an allegation exists, the court explained, but it does not tell the defense that the prosecution intends to introduce the allegation as other-acts evidence at trial. Likewise, listing a witness does not identify the specific extraneous conduct the prosecution plans to offer. Formal notice serves a distinct function: it allows the defense to investigate, seek a pretrial ruling, and prepare to address the evidence. A defendant who requests notice may reasonably rely on the prosecution’s silence as an indication that it will not use such evidence.
The error was not harmless. The People bore the burden to show that it was more probable than not that the inadmissible testimony did not materially affect the verdict. They failed to carry that burden because the prosecutor previewed multiple incidents, developed repeated-touching evidence, and elicited the challenged testimony before it remained with jurors over a multi-day recess. A later instruction to disregard it did not eliminate the danger that jurors used the allegations as propensity evidence. The court reversed the judgment of conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded for a new trial or other proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Key Takeaways
- In Guam criminal cases, producing reports in discovery does not substitute for GRE 404(b) notice when the accused has requested notice of other-acts evidence.
- The prosecution must give reasonable notice of the general nature of the other-acts evidence it intends to introduce and articulate a permissible, non-propensity purpose.
- When inadmissible prior-act testimony is highly prejudicial and remains before jurors for days, striking it later and giving a curative instruction may not make the error harmless.
Why It Matters
This decision creates a clear Guam-specific rule for criminal practitioners: disclosure and evidentiary notice are separate obligations. Prosecutors should expressly identify proposed GRE 404(b) evidence even when the defense already possesses the source material. Defense counsel, meanwhile, has a strong basis to seek exclusion when a timely notice request goes unanswered and should press for a pretrial determination before jurors hear allegations of uncharged misconduct.
The opinion is also institutionally significant because Guam’s highest territorial court openly corrected its own recent ruling in the same case. The Organic Act of Guam, the federal statute that functions as Guam’s constitutional framework, establishes the territorial judicial structure within which the Supreme Court of Guam exercises final local appellate authority. Here, the court drew heavily on federal and state interpretations of the parallel evidence rule while independently defining the safeguards required in Guam courts. That combination illustrates how territorial law develops through local precedent informed, but not mechanically controlled, by federal doctrine.