State v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-2057-20 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEANGELO GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Submitted March 28, 2023
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Bergen County, Indictment No. 18-05-0488.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kevin S Finckenauer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (William P. Miller, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief; Catherine A. Foddai, Legal Assistant, on the brief).
Before Judges Messano and Gummer.
A Bergen County grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant Deangelo Gonzalez with first-degree aggravated sexual assault of R.N. on August 18, 2017, N.J.S.A 2C:14-2(a)(2)(c) (count one); second-degree sexual assault of R.N. on the same date, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4) (count two); third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact of R.N. between July 1 and August 18, 2017, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(a) (counts three and four); and second-degree endangering the welfare of R.N. between July 1 and August 18, 2017, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1) (count five).[1] A jury found defendant guilty of counts one, two, and five, and acquitted him of counts three and four.
Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial. The judge denied the motion and immediately thereafter sentenced defendant. After merging count two into count one, the judge imposed a fourteen-year term of imprisonment with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and a concurrent five-year sentence on count five.
Defendant raises the following points for our consideration on appeal:
We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable legal standards. We affirm.
Thirteen-year-old R.N. (Rose) lived with her mother J.Z. (Jane), her sixteen-year-old sister E.Z. (Ellen), her six-year-old sister D.Z. (Dawn), and defendant in an apartment in Bergenfield. Defendant and Jane were not married, but they had been dating for approximately ten years, and defendant was Dawn's biological father. Although Ellen testified that the children had a good relationship with defendant, Rose said sometimes they got along and other times they argued. Rose referred to defendant as her stepfather.
On Friday, August 18, 2017, Jane dropped her daughters off at their grandmother's apartment in nearby Dumont. At approximately 1:25 p.m., Ellen received a call from defendant on her cell phone. Defendant told Ellen he was coming by to drop off something for Rose, and she should come downstairs to meet him. Ellen testified that defendant, who worked at a car dealership in Paramus, had never before come to her grandmother's home while the girls were spending the day there. When defendant arrived, he handed Rose a box containing a hamster. Rose had desperately wanted the pet, but Jane said she would not get one for her daughter until she did her chores and was more respectful. Defendant told Rose they had to go home to get some food for the hamster.
Rose testified that while at home, defendant ordered her to lie on the bed, pulled down her shorts and panties, and vaginally penetrated her, causing Rose great pain. He then told Rose to get dressed and drove her back to her grandmother's house, calling Rose later to tell her to take a shower. When she showered, Rose said "there[ wa]s blood everywhere and [she] broke down crying." Rose also noticed blood on her shorts and panties as well as the towel she used to dry herself. Frightened, Rose called her mother and asked her to pick her up. She told Jane that she could not talk about what had happened over the phone.
Shortly after 3:00 p.m., defendant again called Ellen and said he wanted to speak to Rose. Ellen called to Rose, who seemed upset; her face was red, and it looked like she had been crying. Rose refused to take the phone, but Ellen insisted. Defendant told Rose that if she did not tell her mother what happened, he would take her and her sisters to the pet store to get whatever she wanted for the hamster. Rose put the phone on speaker setting, and Ellen heard defendant tell Rose not to tell her mother, and he would do something to make up for what had happened.
Defendant and Jane both arrived separately at the grandmother's home. Rose reacted negatively upon seeing defendant but eventually, while alone with her mother, told her what had happened. Jane drove Rose to Hackensack University Medical Center (HUMC) without defendant.
Shortly after 6:00 p.m., Detective Michael Perez of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, Special Victims Unit, received a telephone call from HUMC advising that Rose was in the hospital alleging that she had been sexually assaulted. Perez contacted Beryl Skog, a Bergen County sexual assault nurse examiner.
Skog obtained consent from Jane and began her examination of Rose. When she asked Rose for an account of what had brought her to HUMC, Rose said, among other things, that defendant "came into me," which she explained meant defendant put his penis in her vagina for what felt like five minutes. Rose did not know if defendant had ejaculated and, according to Skog, may not have understood the term.
Rose told Skog what had happened that day "had never happened before, "but she said that defendant "had touched her breasts and grabbed her butt . . . multiple times" in the past. Rose testified before the jury that defendant had sexually touched her breasts and buttocks four times during the month or so before the August 18 assault, but she had not told her mother because her mother "loved" defendant.
Skog's examination of Rose's vaginal area revealed an abrasion, "a large amount of bright red blood coming from the vaginal opening," and a laceration from the hymen to the right vaginal wall. Because of the severity of the injuries, Skog asked a physician to examine Rose. Skog determined the injuries to Rose occurred within twenty-four hours of the examination, which was completed at 11:55 p.m. Rose was referred to Audrey Hepburn Children's House (AHCH) for further medical evaluation.[2] Rose saw Mary Beth Mariano, an advanced practice nurse at AHCH, the next day as a follow-up to Skog's examination. Mariano was qualified at trial as an expert in medical evaluations of suspected child abuse victims. After examining Rose, Mariano concluded there was a laceration of Rose's hymen and sub-mucosal hemorrhaging, findings that were consistent with a penetrating hymenal injury.[3]
Detective Perez went to the car dealership where defendant worked and reviewed video surveillance footage and other records from August 18. He confirmed that defendant may have left the dealership at 12:49 p.m. and returned at 2:14 p.m., times that were consistent with Rose's account of when defendant assaulted her. Perez also obtained a store receipt indicating that defendant had purchased a hamster on August 18 at 1:05 p.m.
The State introduced significant evidence from two of defendant's coworkers. Michael Barahona Portillo said that on August 18, defendant called and asked Portillo to say that he (Portillo) had given defendant a pet hamster for Rose. Defendant called later and suggested Portillo tell Jane that he had found the hamster in a field if she asked. Defendant called again and told Portillo to forget about his earlier calls.
On the following Monday, Portillo noticed defendant's truck parked in the back of the dealership lot near the new car stock; defendant usually parked by the front entrance where there was shade. Portillo asked what had happened, and defendant answered,
That same Monday, Ronlee Christopher Harman, another co-worker, asked defendant what was wrong because he seemed nervous. Defendant answered that he did not want to talk about it, but when Harman pressed him, defendant said he "fucked up" and was "facing [twenty] years." When Harman asked for particulars, defendant said he could not get Harman involved and went inside the building.
Defendant elected not to testify but called several...
To continue reading
Request your trial