Actions Unless Stated Differently in Law. Except as otherwise provided by law, in all trials under this Code, the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court and the admissibility of evidence and the competency and privileges of witnesses shall be governed in the same manner as in civil actions. COURT DECISIONS: DISTRICT COURT, APP. DIV. 1978. Another criminal act is relevant to the issue of identity only if it discloses a distinctive modus operandi which gives rise to a reasonable inference that the charged and uncharged offenses were committed by the same person. People v. Santos, D.C. Guam, App. Div., Cr. App. #76-2A, Decided 02/13/78. C.A.9. 1978. It was error for the Superior Court to fail to give a cautionary instruction regarding evidence of an informer-accomplice even though no local statutes requires such cautionary instructions. People v. Dela Rosa, C.A.9 1980, #79-1739, _____ F.2d _____. Comment cited in support of verdict. People v. Zamis, D.C. Civ. No. 85-00095A (1986). COMMENT: This decision is in conformity with the legislative history repealing § 1111 of the former Penal Code of Guam which required, as did California, that accomplice testimony be corroborated. Testimony favoring repeal was to the effect that defendants would continue to be protected since a cautionary instruction, as required in the Federal Rules, would be required in place of the absolute requirement that such testimony be corroborated.
COL120106
NOTE: Section 95.10 is substantively similar to former Rule 26. However, it has been reorganized to make clear that exceptions to the rules of evidence in civil cases do exist and supplant such rules where applicable. Compare former § 1102. See, e.g., §§ 1.11, 60.80 (inadmissibility of plea discussions), 95.15-95.80. For exceptions to the taking of oral testimony, see §§ 70.70 (use of deposition); 90.29 (jury view); 95.15 (evidence of prior conviction); 95.75 (proof of official record.