harmless error in Guam

2025See Bosi, 2022 Guam 15 ¶ 59 (“The fourth prong of the harmless error analysis supports harmless error because the emails are People v. Reyes, 2025 Guam 8 , Opinion Page 19 of 22 cumulative of ample testimony.”).

2025If the trial court has committed an evidentiary error over an objection, “the proper standard for evaluating whether reversal is required is the harmless error standard.” People v. Bosi, 2022 Guam 15 ¶ 15 (quoting People v. De Soto, 2016 Guam 12 ¶ 19).

2025Our analysis proceeds under the harmless error standard for non-constitutional errors: whether “it is more probable than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict.” Sharpe, 2024 Guam 12 ¶ 14 (quoting Callahan, 2022 Guam 13 ¶ 17 ). [21] “When a trial court abuses its discretion, ‘we are required to reverse the conviction unless the prosecution demonstrates that the error is harmless.’” People v. Vargas, 2024 Guam 1 ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Pugh, 2018 Guam 14 ¶ 26).

2025“The harmless error ‘inquiry typically involves analysis of numerous factors, including: (1) the overall strength of the prosecution’s case; (2) the prosecutor’s conduct with respect to the improperly admitted evidence; (3) the importance of the wrongly admitted evidence; and (4) whether such evidence was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence.’” Sharpe, 2024 Guam 12 ¶ 59 (quoting Roten, 2012 Guam 3 ¶ 41).

2025People v. Reyes, 2025 Guam 8 , Opinion Page 10 of 22 found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. ¶ 47 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). [17] When a defendant fails to object to prosecutorial misconduct, we review whether the trial court improperly permitted the conduct for plain error.

2025However, the Second Circuit has also cautioned that “the mere fact that the properly admitted evidence, standing alone, would have been sufficient to support the conviction is not determinative . . . .” Wray v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 515, 526 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946) (“The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error.”).12 12 This is not to say we cannot consider whether “the prosecution’s case was strong enough to support a conviction exclusive of the . . . hearsay statement.

2025See Morales, 2022 Guam 1 ¶ 12 (citing People v. Roby, 2017 Guam 7 ¶ 18).

2025However, the Second Circuit has also cautioned that “the mere fact that the properly admitted evidence, standing alone, would have been sufficient to support the conviction is not determinative . . . .” Wray v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 515, 526 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946) (“The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error.”).12 12 This is not to say we cannot consider whether “the prosecution’s case was strong enough to support a conviction exclusive of the . . . hearsay statement.

2025As the Supreme Court has instructed, this determination requires examining “the trial record as a whole.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 509 (1983); see also People v. Pugh, 2018 Guam 14 ¶ 26 n.4 (“‘Harmless error determinations are highly fact-specific,’ and ‘often involve a review of the entire trial record.’” (quoting Inthavong v. Lamarque, 420 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005))).

2025“A harmless error inquiry typically involves analysis of numerous factors, including: (1) the overall strength of the prosecution’s case; (2) the prosecutor’s conduct with respect to the improperly admitted evidence; (3) the importance of the wrongly admitted evidence; and (4) whether such evidence was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence.” Roten, 2012 Guam 3 ¶ 41 (citing United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 217 (2d Cir. 2005)). [33] If a party does not object to an evidentiary ruling at trial, this court instead reviews the issue for plain error.

2025People v. Simmons, 2025 Guam 13 , Opinion Page 36 of 42 cumulative of other properly admitted evidence.” Roten, 2012 Guam 3 ¶ 41 (citing Garcia, 413 F.3d at 217 ). [93] In People v. Roten, 2012 Guam 3 , we found persuasive the Second Circuit’s approach to harmless error, which it “distilled from relevant Supreme Court precedent.” Garcia, 413 F.3d at 217 .

2025People v. Reyes, 2025 Guam 8 , Opinion Page 10 of 22 found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. ¶ 47 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). [17] When a defendant fails to object to prosecutorial misconduct, we review whether the trial court improperly permitted the conduct for plain error.

2025See Bosi, 2022 Guam 15 ¶ 59 (“The fourth prong of the harmless error analysis supports harmless error because the emails are People v. Reyes, 2025 Guam 8 , Opinion Page 19 of 22 cumulative of ample testimony.”).

2025Our analysis proceeds under the harmless error standard for non-constitutional errors: whether “it is more probable than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict.” Sharpe, 2024 Guam 12 ¶ 14 (quoting Callahan, 2022 Guam 13 ¶ 17 ). [21] “When a trial court abuses its discretion, ‘we are required to reverse the conviction unless the prosecution demonstrates that the error is harmless.’” People v. Vargas, 2024 Guam 1 ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Pugh, 2018 Guam 14 ¶ 26).

2025Our analysis proceeds under the harmless error standard for non-constitutional errors: whether “it is more probable than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict.” Sharpe, 2024 Guam 12 ¶ 14 (quoting Callahan, 2022 Guam 13 ¶ 17 ). [21] “When a trial court abuses its discretion, ‘we are required to reverse the conviction unless the prosecution demonstrates that the error is harmless.’” People v. Vargas, 2024 Guam 1 ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Pugh, 2018 Guam 14 ¶ 26).

2025As the Supreme Court has instructed, this determination requires examining “the trial record as a whole.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 509 (1983); see also People v. Pugh, 2018 Guam 14 ¶ 26 n.4 (“‘Harmless error determinations are highly fact-specific,’ and ‘often involve a review of the entire trial record.’” (quoting Inthavong v. Lamarque, 420 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005))).

2022“Where the trial court has abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence, the proper standard for evaluating whether reversal is required is the harmless error standard.” People v. Pugh, 2018 Guam 14 ¶ 16 (citing De Soto, 2016 Guam 12 ¶ 43). [13] “Where a defendant raise[d] the issue of sufficiency of the evidency by a motion for judgment of acquittal, we review the trial court’s denial of the motion de novo.” People v. Song, 2021 Guam 14 ¶ 16 (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Aguon, 2020 Guam 24 ¶ 11).