(a) An appeal may be taken by the government from any of the following:
(1) An order granting a new trial. (2) An order arresting judgment. (3) An order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the government. (4) An order modifying the verdict on finding by reducing the degree of the offense or the punishment imposed. (5) An order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating the action before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy or where the defendant has waived jeopardy. (6) An order granting a motion to suppress evidence. This appeal may be taken prior to trial if the appeal is timely filed pursuant to § 130.40 of the Criminal Procedure Code and before the trial has commenced. Upon the timely filing of an appeal pursuant to this Subsection, the Superior Court shall stay all proceedings until the Appellate Court has acted pursuant to § 130.60 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (b) When an appeal is taken pursuant to Paragraph (5) of Subsection (a), the prosecuting attorney shall be prohibited from refiling the action which was appealed. SOURCE: Enacted 1977; Subsection (a)(6) added by P.L. 15-147, effective 12/31/80. COURT DECISIONS: SUPER. CT. 1982 Section 130.20(a) limits appeals by the Government to appeals of motions to suppress evidence, and not to other forms of action which would exclude evidence from the trial. This Section is stricter than the equivalent federal rule. People v. Mafnas, Cr. #97F-80. NOTE: The right of the government to appeal from an order granting a new trial (§ 130.20(a)(1) reverses the decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court (People v. Solivio, No. _________ , (1976). That case held that a Anew trial@ referred only to a court trial. Now § 110.10, CPC, defines the issue as referring to both court and jury trials. Subsection (a)(6) was added in response to the District Court Appellate Division's decision in People v. Quitugua [D.C. Crim. App. #79- 00069A and #79-00075A]. That case held that the Legislature of Guam has no power to direct the review of a case to the trial division of the District Court and invalidated § 65.17 as enacted by P.L. 15-94 and, further, reinstated the former § 65.17 which allowed the very interlocutory appeals by defendants that the Legislature was trying to abolish. While this Section
grants a full appeal, the Attorney General in recommending its adoption, believed that appeals by the Government would be made only in exceptional cases and, in any event, would not be made to frustrate the ends of justice. The real frustration of justice had been with the many appeals filed by defendants, and P.L. 15-147, §§ 11 and 12 eliminated the right of defendants to such appeals, thereby eliminating the problems of delay which had occurred. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in People v. District Court 80- 7352, probably reversed Quitugua. Had the James decision been rendered prior to the adoption of P.L. 15-147, the amendment to this Section would probably have been unnecessary. Nevertheless, this Section now governs all matters of appeal by the government of motions to suppress evidence. See People v. District Court [James, Real Party] C.A.9 1981 #80- 7352, 641 F.2d 616. Decided April 9, 1981.