Gonzalez v. State
| Docket Number | 1075-2022 |
| Decision Date | 08 August 2023 |
| Parties | ANTONIO E. GONZALEZ v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
UNREPORTED[*]
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND[**]
Friedman, Ripken, Eyler, Deborah S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
In June of 2022, a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County found Appellant, Antonio E. Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), guilty of two counts of second-degree assault against his then-wife, M.,[1] and one count of second-degree assault against F.,[2] their teenage son. The jury also found Gonzalez not guilty of first-degree assault against M. and second-degree physical child abuse against F. The court imposed a sentence of four years with all but six months suspended on each of two counts of second-degree assault on M., those counts to run concurrently, and an additional four years with all but 60 days suspended to run consecutively on the third count of second-degree assault on F. Each count included three years' supervised probation. Gonzalez noted this timely appeal. For the reasons to follow, we shall affirm.
On the evening of March 13, 2020, Gonzalez committed assaults on his then-wife, M., and their 13-year-old son, F. which ultimately lead to the convictions herein. Gonzalez and M. lived in a single-family home with their three children and a tenant. Prior to the altercation, on the day of the incident, Gonzalez was at home while M. was out of the house. When M. returned home, she observed that Gonzalez had been drinking beer. According to M., Gonzalez was "very aggressive" and told M. that his drinking was "[n]one of [her] business." M. then gathered Gonzalez's beers and poured them down the sink. Gonzalez became angry, demanded that M. either give him money or replace the beer, and then pushed M. against a wall. M. and Gonzalez went to their bedroom, where they were joined by F., who was able to calm Gonzalez and persuade him to sit down. However, Gonzalez subsequently stood up and pushed F. Gonzalez then grabbed M.'s neck from behind and placed her in a chokehold, causing her to have trouble breathing. F. tried to intervene, but Gonzalez grabbed him by the neck, until F. was able to remove Gonzalez's hands from his neck. The tenant, who overheard the altercation, entered the bedroom and freed Gonzalez's hands from M.'s neck. M. then called 911, and police officers responded to their home. An ambulance subsequently transported M. to the hospital for treatment of her injuries.[4] According to the police report, which was admitted into evidence, Gonzalez was intoxicated and hit M. and F. Similarly, the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service team's ("MCFRS") report, also admitted into evidence, stated that Gonzalez physically assaulted M. and F. and choked M. We describe additional testimony and evidence presented at trial where relevant in our discussion of the issues.
"Trial courts retain wide latitude in determining what evidence is material and relevant, and to that end, may limit, in their discretion, the extent to which a witness may be cross-examined for the purpose of showing bias." Wagner v. State, 213 Md.App. 419, 468 (2013) (quoting Parker v. State, 185 Md.App. 399, 426 (2009)). Additionally, "[a]n appellate court reviews without deference a trial court's restriction of cross-examination where that restriction is based on the trial court's, 'understanding of the legal rules that may limit particular questions or areas of inquiry.'" Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 49 (2020) (quoting Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 124 (2015)). With respect to decisions affecting the composition of the jury, "we will reverse a trial court's ruling on the composition of the jury only if the trial court abused its discretion." Burdette v. Rockville Crane Rental Inc., 130 Md.App. 193, 203 (2000). Furthermore, "unless there is a clear abuse of discretion that likely injured a party[,]" we shall not disturb the trial court's decision to limit a party's closing argument. Ingram v. State, 427 Md. 717, 726 (2012). "[A] court's decision is an abuse of discretion when it is well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable." Wheeler v. State, 459 Md. 555, 561 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Alexis v. State, 437 Md. 457, 478 (2014)).
Prior to trial, the State disclosed to Gonzalez a letter addressed to the Montgomery County State's Attorney's Office from M.'s immigration attorney, requesting the completion of a relevant section of M.'s application for a U-Visa. The letter was dated April 23, 2021, over one year after the events that led to the charges.[5] The letter asked the State to certify that M. was "the victim of a crime" and that she was "helpful to law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the crime."[6] The State was provided a form that listed the criminal charges against Gonzalez, provided M.'s account of the incident, and asserted that M. was "cooperating with the State Attorney's Office."[7] On August 4, 2021, the State signed the "Certification" section of the form, certifying that M. was a victim of the listed crimes, that the State "ma[d]e no promises regarding [M.]'s ability to obtain a visa," and "that if [M.] unreasonably refuse[d] to assist in the investigation or prosecution of the qualifying criminal activity of which . . . she [was] a victim, [the State] [would] notify [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services]."
At trial, Gonzalez sought the court's permission to cross-examine M. about her immigration status and U-Visa application. Gonzalez claimed that the U-Visa application could impact M.'s credibility as a witness by creating a quid pro quo relationship between M. and the State. In order to establish the relevance of M.'s immigration status, the court permitted Gonzalez to question M. at length outside of the jury's presence. Gonzalez's questioning consisted of the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial