People v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 16 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-17-2097 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Kieran M. Wiberg, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Phyllis Warren, and Aileen Bhandari, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant, Miguel Martinez, was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse and was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant seeks reversal of his convictions and the sentence imposed thereon, arguing that his trial was conducted in contravention of his constitutional right to be present for all critical phases of his trial as well as in violation of his rights to confrontation and a public trial. For the reasons explained herein, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 3 Defendant was charged with multiple sex offenses including predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse based on evidence that he engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with his eight-year-old minor daughter, B.M.
¶ 4 Prior to trial, the State sought leave to permit B.M. to testify via a closed-circuit television at the upcoming trial. The State's request was made pursuant to the recommendation of Illinois Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) personnel who believed that it would be psychologically damaging to B.M. to require her to testify against her father in his presence. The circuit court presided over a hearing on the matter and heard testimony from a clinical psychologist treating B.M. who opined that that it would be detrimental to B.M.’s mental health if she were required to confront her father in person and that testimony via closed-circuit television would provide B.M. with "some semblance of safety." Defense counsel, in turn, acknowledged that he did not object to the State's request to permit B.M. to testify via closed-circuit television "as long as [defendant's] rights [we]re protected" during the upcoming trial. Ultimately, after considering the testimony of B.M.’s psychologist and the positions of the parties, the court granted the State's motion. In doing so, the court expressly found that allowing "closed circuit questioning of the complaining witness" would protect defendant's rights. Thereafter, defendant waived his right to a jury trial, electing instead to proceed by way of a bench trial.
¶ 5 Prior to opening statements, the assistant state's attorney (ASA) prosecuting the case informed the court, defendant, and defense counsel how the closed-circuit television system had been set up in anticipation of B.M.’s testimony. The ASA explained that television screen had been set up in a nearby room where defendant could sit and hear his daughter's testimony while she testified in the courtroom. The room was also equipped with an "intercom phone" that would allow defendant the opportunity to communicate in real time with his attorney. When asked if the set up was "satisfactory," defense counsel responded "yes." Defendant also acknowledged that he understood the procedure. The court then suggested that defendant relocate to the other room during oral arguments to ensure that the system was in proper working order prior to B.M.’s testimony. After opening arguments concluded, defense counsel went to speak to defendant, who reported that he had been unable to hear the opening statements. The sheriff's deputy who remained in the room with defendant during opening statements confirmed that the statements had been inaudible. The ASA increased the volume of the microphone, and defense counsel indicated that would he stand closer to the microphone when he cross-examined B.M. Thereafter, the sheriff's deputy indicated that he could hear defense counsel "just fine." Accordingly, the State requested the court to clear the courtroom of all nonessential court personnel, and B.M. was then called upon to testify.
¶ 6 B.M., who was 13 years old and in the care of a foster family at the time of trial, detailed the sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of defendant from January 2011 to November 2012. When the abuse started, B.M. was eight years old, and she was living in an apartment with her two sisters, three brothers, defendant, and her mother. At the apartment, her three brothers shared a room and her mother slept in another room with B.M.’s two sisters. B.M., in turn, shared a room with defendant. She explained that her father would sleep on the bed while she slept on a cushion on the floor. There were certain times, however, that defendant "call[ed]" her to the bed.
¶ 7 B.M. testified that defendant first abused her when her mom was shopping with B.M.’s three brothers and one of her sisters. B.M. and her youngest sister, who was a baby at the time, were left behind with defendant. B.M. explained that she had been unable to accompany her mother shopping because she had not been able to find her shoes. While her mother and siblings were out shopping, defendant called B.M. to the bed and showed her an "inappropriate" video. The adults in the video were naked and "doing things" to each other. Defendant taught her that her "private area" was called a "pussy" and referred to her chest area as "boobs." He also taught her that his penis was called a "dick."
¶ 8 B.M. testified that on the occasions in which she was called to the bed with defendant, he touched her "pussy" with his "dick." Neither of them would be wearing underwear. Defendant also attempted to put his "dick" in her "pussy," which B.M. found to be "uncomfortable." She also found it "uncomfortable" when defendant tried to put his finger in her "pussy." B.M. testified that defendant made her touch his "dick" with her mouth and ordered her to "suck it." Defendant also touched her boobs with his hands and his mouth. He instructed her "not to tell anybody" about their interactions. B.M. explained that she followed defendant's instructions because he was her father. The abuse stopped when she was examined by a doctor and removed from the care of her parents.
¶ 9 On cross-examination, B.M. testified that, although she knew defendant first abused her when she was eight years old, she did not remember specific details about the time of the year or day of the week that the first incidence of abuse occurred. She testified that defendant used his "flip phone" to show her the inappropriate video. After that, he tried to put his "dick" and his finger in her "pussy" but was unsuccessful. B.M. also admitted she did not recall how much time passed before defendant abused her again. She did recall that the second time occurred after defendant showed her another inappropriate video on the television that was in the family room. Nobody else was home, and she did not tell her mother, siblings, or teacher what had occurred. She did not recall how many times defendant touched her inappropriately but testified that the abuse occurred on more than those two occasions. B.M. further testified that she was unaware that there were problems in her parents’ marriage, and she did not know why she slept in defendant's room while her mother slept in another room with her sisters.
¶ 10 Dolly Martinez (Martinez), B.M.’s biological mother and defendant's ex-wife, admitted that she pled guilty to permitting the sexual abuse of a minor in connection with the events that occurred between B.M. and defendant. She also acknowledged that none of her six biological children were currently in her custody and care. Back in 2012, however, she was residing in a Cicero apartment with her six children and defendant. Martinez confirmed that she and defendant had slept in different rooms in the apartment. She slept in a room with two of her daughters and her youngest son. Although she invited B.M. to sleep with her, B.M. told her that she would "rather" sleep with defendant in his room. Martinez testified that she first became aware of B.M.’s abuse on November 4, 2012, when she arrived home to the apartment and opened defendant's bedroom door. When she did so, she observed defendant on the bed with B.M. Defendant was lying on top of B.M. Neither of them was wearing clothes. Martinez became mad and scared when she saw defendant having sex with their daughter. Martinez testified that she attempted to speak to defendant and B.M. later that day about what she had observed; however, defendant "just ignored" her and B.M. "would not open up to" her. She did not let B.M. sleep in defendant's room after that day. Martinez acknowledged, however, that she did not immediately contact police about what she had seen and that she had not taken her daughter to the hospital to be examined. Instead, she took B.M. to her mother's house.
¶ 11 Although Martinez admitted that she spoke to detectives and an ASA about the November 4, 2012, incident and provided them with a signed statement on November 11, 2012, she did not remember telling them that she had prior knowledge of defendant's inappropriate sexual behavior with their daughter before she observed them in bed together. Specifically, Martinez did not recall telling the authorities that she had a conversation with B.M. "about a month" earlier during which B.M. reported that she did not want to be around defendant because he was "hurting" her and "always trying" to put his "dick" and finger in her. Martinez acknowledged that defendant owned a "flip phone" that had been provided to him through a government program but testified that it was not capable of playing videos. He also owned another cellular phone, but she did not know if it could play videos. Martinez did recall observing images of...
To continue reading
Request your trial