Defense Urges Guam High Court to Require Physical Test When Proving a Gun's Operability

In oral argument in CRA25-012, attorney Terry Timblin urged the Supreme Court of Guam to adopt a practical evidentiary rule: when a question of operability is central and mechanical testing or simple repair is feasible, the prosecution should be required to perform that inspection rather than rely solely on opinion testimony.

Timblin relied on Wigmore on Evidence to distinguish testimonial, circumstantial and direct inspection evidence, arguing that "there is nothing quite like actually examining the item itself." He illustrated with hypotheticals — for example, replacing a broken mainspring — and said "when it's not particularly difficult or burdensome, to go the last few feet as opposed to the last mile, that, maybe, they should be required to do it." Counsel framed this as a sliding-scale, case-by-case inquiry about due diligence.

A justice pressed whether such a requirement would conflict with the court's precedent and legislative intent under Title 10. Appellee counsel countered that People v. Tennyson and Title 10 evaluate firearms by design and apparent capability, not current working condition, and warned that a mechanical-testing requirement could produce impractical consequences for prosecution and enforcement.