Gomez v. State , 355
| Decision Date | 28 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 355,2010.,355 |
| Parties | Sergio I. GOMEZ, Defendant Below–Appellant,v.STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below–Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County, ID No. 0905010691.Upon appeal from the Superior Court. REVERSED and REMANDED.Joseph A. Hurley, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant.John Williams, Esquire, of the Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware, for Appellee.Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.RIDGELY, Justice:
Defendant–Below/Appellant, Sergio Gomez, was charged by indictment with two counts of raping his nine-year-old niece. The matter proceeded to a jury trial. During the pretrial conference, the trial judge ruled that Gomez's prior conviction in New Jersey for a similar sexual offense against Gomez's other niece (the complaining witness's cousin) was inadmissible. But, the complaining witness's mother referred to the commission of that crime during her testimony, which occurred at the very end of the first day of Gomez's trial. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The trial judge denied that motion the next morning. The jury ultimately found Gomez guilty of two counts of rape first degree.
On appeal, Gomez contends, among other things, that the trial judge committed reversible error in denying his mistrial motion after the prejudicial testimony was given. We agree. When the jury heard that Gomez had committed a similar sexual offense against Gomez's other niece (the complaining witness's cousin), this gave rise to an impermissible inference that he had committed the offense for which he was being tried. A mistrial was required in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the judgments of the Superior Court are reversed and the matter is remanded for a new trial consistent with this Opinion. To provide guidance at that new trial and in other cases, we also comment on additional arguments made by Gomez.
When the complaining witness, whom we refer to as S.C., was younger, she often visited her aunt and uncle—Janet Lara and Sergio Gomez—at their home in Smyrna, Delaware. S.C.'s cousins also lived at that home. During at least one visit, S.C. allegedly encountered her Uncle Sergio on the stairs. S.C. recalled: “My aunty's husband did something wrong to me and I didn't like it.” S.C. was five years old at the time of the alleged incidents. S.C. eventually revealed those incidents to her mother. Thereafter, at the Delaware Child Advocacy Center (the “CAC”), S.C. told a forensic interviewer that her Uncle Sergio had touched her “private part.” Gomez was then charged by indictment with two counts of rape first degree. The matter proceeded to a jury trial.
Several significant rulings occurred at the pretrial conference. First, the trial judge and the prosecutor discussed the possibility of playing the video of the CAC interview for the jury as follows:
Second, the prosecutor informed the trial judge that he had arranged for an interpreter to be available when S.C. and S.C.'s mother testified. The prosecutor explained:
I've been dealing with them without an interpreter, and it's been going pretty well. I'd like to have the interpreter here as just kind of a backup if she gets hung up. I don't think she needs to sit here and interpret every single thing that's said.
Third, the prosecutor moved to allow S.C.'s mother to sit in the courtroom as a support person while S.C. testified. The trial judge and the prosecutor discussed that special accommodation as follows:
Finally, the trial judge addressed Gomez's prior conviction in New Jersey for a similar sexual offense against S.C.'s cousin and provided guidance to the parties that testimony from witnesses about that offense would raise issues under Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(b).1 The trial judge determined that the prior conviction was inadmissible.2
After the prosecutor and defense counsel made their opening statements, the trial judge excused the jury for lunch. After the lunch break, but before the jury reentered the courtroom, the following exchange occurred:
Also before the jury reentered the courtroom, the trial judge engaged in a colloquy with the State's first witness, S.C. After that colloquy, the trial judge instructed S.C. as follows:
All right. Let's bring the jury in. You can sit right there when the jury comes in. And when we do the oath, just sit right where you are and put your hand on that Bible in front of you.
The trial judge also permitted S.C. to hold a teddy bear while she testified.
S.C. testified on direct examination as follows:
Immediately after that testimony, the prosecutor moved to introduce the video of the CAC interview pursuant to title 11, section 3507 of the Delaware Code, but the trial judge agreed with defense counsel that the prosecutor was required to further develop S.C.'s testimony to sufficiently “touch on” the events that S.C. had perceived. S.C. continued to testify as follows:
The trial judge stated: “I believe a sufficient foundation has been laid.” The trial judge then allowed the prosecutor to play the video of the CAC interview, which included a more detailed description of the alleged events, including an account of Gomez kissing S.C.'s “private part.” It appears that S.C. testified without the aid of the interpreter.
S.C.'s mother also testified on the first day of Gomez's trial. The record reflects that S.C.'s mother began to testify without the interpreter's aid, but the trial judge stated: “[S]ince we're going to use the interpreter, we're going to ask that you let the question be asked, wait until the interpreter interprets for you, and then you can respond, even if you happen to know what the question is.” S.C.'s mother then continued to testify. At the conclusion of defense counsel's cross examination of S.C.'s mother, the following exchange occurred (emphasis added):
Defense counsel then stated: “I have no other questions.” At a sidebar conference immediately thereafter, defense counsel stated: “There was evidence about the prior conviction.” The trial judge replied: “We'll get to that when we don't have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dye
...a special measure is necessary to facilitate the witness's testimony. Delaware has adopted a “substantial need” standard, Gomez v. State, 25 A.3d 786, 798–99 (Del.2011), and Hawaii has adopted a similar “compelling necessity” standard. State v. Palabay, 9 Haw.App. 414, 417, 844 P.2d 1 (1992......
-
Commonwealth v. Purnell
...the child-victim's unimpeached credibility, or deprived appellant of his constitutional right of confrontation"), with Gomez v. State , 25 A.3d 786, 798–99 (Del. 2011) (requiring prosecution to show that special measure is necessary to facilitate witness's testimony, adopting "substantial n......
-
People v. Collins
...the child-victim's unimpeached credibility, or deprived appellant of his constitutional right of confrontation"), with Gomez v. State, 25 A.3d 786, 798-99 (Del. 2011) (adopting "substantial need" standard, requiring the prosecution to show that the item is necessary to facilitate the witnes......
-
Ruffin v. State
...defendant's Motion for a Mistrial despite witness's improper reference to "mug shots" used in photographic lineup); Gomez v. State, 25 A.3d 786, 793 (Del. 2011) ; McNair v. State, 990 A.2d 398, 403 (Del. 2010). The "trial judge is in the best position to assess the risk of any prejudice fro......