State v. Hernandez
| Decision Date | 27 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 27308.,27308. |
| Citation | 874 N.W.2d 493 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jeremias HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, John M. Strohman, Assistant Attorney General Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.
Beau J. Blouin, Minnehaha County Public Defender's Office, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellant.
[¶ 1.] A Minnehaha County jury convicted Jeremias Hernandez on six counts of child rape—SDCL 22–22–1(1), and six counts of sexual contact with a minor—SDCL 22–22–7. Some counts within the indictment were phrased identically. Hernandez contends the evidence was insufficient to show six sexual penetrations and to establish the county where three of the child rape counts occurred. Hernandez also asserts that the identically phrased counts deprived him of due process. Specifically, he argues that the identically phrased counts subjected him to multiple punishments for a single offense, deprived him of fair notice, and preclude him from pleading the convictions in a subsequent case. Hernandez argues that if a defendant is indicted on more than one count of violating the same statutory offense (and the language used in the counts is identical), due process and double jeopardy concerns require the State to elect the specific acts that the State relies on for each of the identically phrased counts. The circuit court held it did not. We affirm.
[¶ 2.] On June 21, 2013, a grand jury indicted Hernandez on twelve felony counts for child rape and sexual contact of two minor sisters, D.C. and L.C.
[¶ 3.] Counts 1, 2, and 3 were identical: each charged first-degree rape of D.C., a child under thirteen, occurring between October 2011 and May 2012 in Minnehaha County.
[¶ 4.] Counts 4, 5, 6 were identical: each charged first-degree rape of D.C., a child under thirteen, occurring between May 2012 and May 2013 in Minnehaha County.
[¶ 5.] Counts 7 and 8 were identical: each charged sexual contact with D.C., a child under sixteen, occurring between October 2011 and May 2012 in Minnehaha County.
[¶ 6.] Counts 9 and 10 were identical: each charged sexual contact with D.C., a child under sixteen, occurring between May 2012 and May 2013 in Minnehaha County.
[¶ 7.] Counts 11 and 12 were identical: each charged sexual contact with L.C., a child under sixteen, occurring between October 2012 and May 2013 in Minnehaha County.
[¶ 8.] During the trial, D.C., a fifth grader, testified that Hernandez (who lived with them at the Garfield Apartments in Sioux Falls, South Dakota) put his hand on her "bottom part" multiple times in the master bedroom; Hernandez licked her on her bottom part on multiple occasions; and Hernandez tried to put his bottom part into her bottom part on multiple occasions in both the master bedroom and D.C.'s bedroom, resulting in Hernandez ejaculating onto D.C. D.C. also testified that Hernandez touched her breasts on multiple occasions. D.C. testified the same thing happened to L.C., D.C.'s younger sister (with the exception that Hernandez would not touch L.C.'s breasts). This happened to L.C. more than one time, D.C. testified.1 Hernandez, D.C., L.C., and the girl's mother (V.C.), subsequently moved to a trailer home at Delta Place. D.C. testified that, after the move, Hernandez continued to place his hand on her bottom part, lick her bottom part, and rub her chest on more than one occasion. Further, D.C. testified that Hernandez had her touch his bottom part by rubbing it up and down until "white stuff" would come out. D.C. also testified that she saw Hernandez touch L.C.'s bottom part, lick L.C.'s bottom part, and try to put his "thing" inside her.
[¶ 9.] Klely Martinez, mother of one of D.C.'s friends, testified that D.C. told Martinez about the sexual activity with Hernandez; that D.C. told Martinez that Hernandez would touch D.C. on her private parts; and that D.C. told Martinez that D.C. did not want the same to happen to L.C. anymore. Martinez testified that she took D.C. and L.C. to her pastor at Augustana Lutheran Church in Sioux Falls. The pastor, Jeanette Clark, was a mandatory reporter. Pastor Clark testified that she drove to the police station and Martinez and the girls followed. At the police station, they informed the officers of the situation. From the police station, V.C. was telephoned. V.C. testified that D.C. subsequently informed V.C. about the incidents and V.C. confirmed the living arrangements over the applicable timeframe.
[¶ 10.] Colleen Brazil, a forensic interviewer with Child's Voice (a children's advocacy center) interviewed D.C. on June 10, 2013. D.C., whose date of birth was October 21, 2002, was ten years old at the time of the interview. The jury viewed a video recording of the interview whereby D.C. confirmed many of the same allegations, including the fact that this all started when D.C. was nine years old.
[¶ 11.] Hernandez did not call any witnesses in his defense, but he did move the court for judgment of acquittal. Hernandez argued that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to show that he penetrated D.C., as alleged in the indictment. The circuit court denied the motion stating, "[D.C.'s] statement that was offered to the Child's Voice forensic interviewer did include evidence which does support those charges...."
[¶ 12.] At the conclusion of evidence, the circuit court instructed the jury. The court's instructions were typical. The instructions spelled out the elements of each count in the indictment, instructed the jury to consider each count in the indictment and the evidence applied to that count, and instructed the jury that they must conclude unanimously which evidence applied to each particular count.
[¶ 13.] During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that counts one, two, and three were supported by D.C.'s testimony that Hernandez licked, touched, and placed his penis in D.C.'s vagina while they lived at the Garfield Apartments. The prosecutor pointed out that D.C. testified this conduct began when D.C. was nine. D.C.'s statements to Brazil also support a conclusion of penetration, the prosecutor urged.
[¶ 14.] Next, the prosecutor argued that counts four, five, and six were supported by D.C.'s testimony that Hernandez licked and digitally penetrated D.C.'s vagina on multiple occasions while living at Delta Place—a period matching the timeframe delineated in the counts. Additionally, the prosecutor reiterated the jury instruction that required all jurors to consider the same act for each charge and to consider each charge separately. Nonetheless, the prosecutor argued that the evidence supports a finding of penetration for each count.
[¶ 15.] For the counts charging sexual contact of D.C. while at the Garfield Apartments (counts seven and eight), the prosecutor directed the jury to D.C.'s testimony that Hernandez licked and sucked on her breasts on multiple occasions, as well as Hernandez requiring D.C. to masturbate him. Again, the prosecutor told the jury that they must only consider Hernandez sucking on her breasts one time or the masturbation one time for each count.
[¶ 16.] Likewise, for Counts 9 and 10, charging sexual contact with D.C. at Delta Place, the prosecutor directed the jury to testimony that Hernandez continued to suck on D.C.'s breasts and Hernandez required her to masturbate him with her hands until ejaculation. Finally, the prosecutor argued that Counts 11 and 12, charging Hernandez with sexual contact of L.C., are supported by D.C.'s testimony that she observed Hernandez touching L.C.'s privates, tried to stick his private parts in L.C.'s private parts, and was touching L.C.'s breasts.
[¶ 17.] The State and Hernandez delivered closing arguments and the court submitted the case to the jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all twelve counts. Hernandez appeals, raising three issues: (1) whether the State introduced sufficient evidence to establish that the incidents alleged at the Garfield Apartments occurred in Minnehaha County; (2) whether the State introduced sufficient evidence to support six convictions of sexual penetration; and (3) whether multiplicity in the indictment violated Hernandez's right to fair notice and protection against double jeopardy.
[¶ 18.] Hernandez argues that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence that the incidents in the Garfield Apartments (Counts 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) were committed in Minnehaha County. After reviewing the record de novo, we disagree. See State v. Plenty Horse, 2007 S.D. 114, ¶ 5, 741 N.W.2d 763, 764 ().
[¶ 19.] State v. Haase, 446 N.W.2d 62, 65 (S.D.1989) (quoting United States v. Black Cloud, 590 F.2d 270, 272 (8th Cir.1979) ). Here, the State properly alleged venue in Minnehaha County on each of the counts in the indictment and Hernandez did not object to venue at the close of the State's case in chief. Therefore, Hernandez waived venue, even if the Garfield Apartments were located in another county in South Dakota.
[¶ 20.] Moreover, V.C.'s trial testimony supports a jury inference that the incidents at the Garfield Apartments occurred in Minnehaha County. See id. at 65–66 (). On direct examination, the prosecution questioned V.C. about her current Sioux Falls address at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Chipps
-
State v. Snodgrass
...and alleged that the rapes occurred during two time periods: an eight-month period and a thirteen-month period. 2016 S.D. 5, ¶¶ 3-4, 874 N.W.2d 493, 496. Relying on Russell v. United States , 369 U.S. 749, 82 S. Ct. 1038, 8 L. Ed. 2d 240 (1962), Hernandez determined that referencing the tim......
-
State v. Livingood
...it "follow[ed] the language of the statutes and provide[d] fair notice to Livingood." See State v. Hernandez , 2016 S.D. 5, ¶ 37, 874 N.W.2d 493, 502 (holding a sufficient "indictment must ... contain the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform the defendant of the charge against ......