State v. Vazquez
| Decision Date | 02 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020-57-C.A. , (P1/13-3759A),2020-57-C.A. |
| Parties | STATE v. Cesar VAZQUEZ. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Virginia M. McGinn, Department of Attorney General, for State.
Angela M. Yingling, Office of the Public Defender, for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
The defendant, Cesar Vazquez, was convicted following a jury trial on four counts of first-degree child molestation sexual assault. He was sentenced to four concurrent terms of forty-five years imprisonment, with thirty years to serve and the balance suspended, with probation.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial justice erred by denying his motion for a new trial because, defendant argues, the trial justice overlooked material evidence. The defendant maintains that this error entitles him to have his conviction vacated and to be granted a new trial. After careful consideration of defendant's arguments and a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial.
The complaining witness, Jane, was born in 1990.1 In May 2013, Jane revealed to her mother and aunt that defendant had sexually assaulted her on several occasions when she was a child. A short while later, Jane went to the Pawtucket police station and filed a police report containing allegations against defendant.
On December 12, 2013, a grand jury returned a five-count indictment against defendant. Counts one and three alleged first-degree child molestation sexual assault in the form of digital/vaginal penetration, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-37-8.1 ; counts two and four alleged first-degree child molestation sexual assault in the form of penile/vaginal penetration, in violation of § 11-37-8.1 ; and count five alleged third-degree sexual assault, in violation of § 11-37-6. Count five was dismissed by the state prior to trial pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
A jury trial began on November 18, 2015, and concluded on November 23, 2015. At trial, the state called four witnesses. The defendant presented two witnesses. The testimony given at trial revealed the following.
Jane is the daughter of Yanira Rentas, who separated from Jane's father when Jane was very young.2 When Jane was around three years old, Yanira began dating defendant, who then continued to be in Jane's life for years. In 1996 defendant and Yanira had a child together, Jane's younger half-sister, Janelle. Jane described her initial relationship with defendant as "normal[,]" although she also stated that, when living with defendant, Yanira, and Janelle, she felt like a "bonus child[.]" However, eventually the nature of her relationship with defendant drastically changed because, as Jane testified, defendant sexually assaulted her on two occasions during her childhood.
According to Jane, the first incident, encompassing counts one and two of the indictment, occurred on an unspecified date in early 2000 while Jane was living with her mother, Janelle, and defendant in Pawtucket.
At the time, Jane was in elementary school, and her mother "worked a lot[.]" Jane testified that while her mother was working and Jane was not in school or after-school care, she was usually in the care of her grandmother. Jane stated, however, that on this particular occasion, she was watched in the family's home only by defendant, who was also caring for then-three-year-old Janelle. Jane testified that she began to doze while she, Janelle, and defendant were in her mother's bedroom watching a movie. She added that Janelle was running in and out of the bedroom, as if playing a game. Jane testified that, at one point, she heard the door to the bedroom close, leaving Janelle outside. According to Jane, defendant then got onto the bed with Jane and touched her under her shorts and underwear. Jane further testified that defendant then removed her shorts and underwear and put his fingers, and then his penis, into her vagina. According to Jane, after the incident, defendant threatened to kill her mother if she said anything, which left Jane feeling "[t]errified."
Jane also testified to a second incident, encompassing counts three and four of the indictment, which occurred on an unspecified date in late 2003 or early 2004.
Jane testified that the second incident took place in the apartment in Lincoln where she lived with her mother and Janelle; defendant did not live in the apartment because defendant and her mother had broken up by that time. Jane testified that the three of them lived in a second-floor apartment in a four-unit building with two units on each floor. Jane also testified that her aunt Sofia Rentas, her mother's sister, lived in the apartment next door.
Jane testified that the front door to the apartment building was often left unlocked and that the doors between the apartments on the second floor, which allowed Sofia access to the apartment Jane and her family lived in, were also unlocked during the day; the apartment doors could be open or closed depending on various factors, such as her mother wanting to keep heat inside their apartment. However, Sofia testified at trial that the front door to the apartment building was kept locked, and Janelle testified that the doors between the apartments were always open.
Jane further testified that defendant often stopped by the Lincoln apartment and spent time with both Janelle and Jane—although, according to Jane, after the first incident of sexual assault she wanted to "not have to have interactions with [defendant] if not necessary."
Jane testified that, on the day of the second incident, defendant entered her bedroom in the Lincoln apartment, where she was sitting in a chair at her desk using her computer. Jane stated that defendant grabbed her arm, led her from the chair to the bed, pushed her onto the bed, covered her mouth with his hand, and removed her jeans and underwear. Jane testified that defendant then touched her vagina with his fingers and inserted his fingers, and then his penis, into her vagina. Jane testified that defendant then left the room. According to Jane, after the second incident she felt "hurt[,]" "betrayed[,]" and "broken."
Jane stated that, after the incidents occurred, she did not want to continue a relationship with defendant and often refused to spend time with him, although sometimes her mother required her to do so. Jane also acknowledged that she appeared in various photographs with defendant that were taken after the incidents occurred; according to Jane, she did so "to keep everything appearing normal."
Jane testified to various rationales for delaying her disclosure of the incidents. Jane stated that shortly after the second incident she was "terrified" and "scared of what would happen if [she] told[.]" She testified that she "was scared of [defendant], especially after he threatened [her]." She also stated that she was worried that even if she revealed the incidents, they would be "brushed under the rug," and she would still be required to see defendant. Jane further testified that she did not disclose as time went on because she had "built a life" and she "didn't want it crashing down." She also stated that she did not "want to relive what had happened[,]" nor to "hurt family members"—she simply "wanted to leave things as they were."
However, eventually Jane did disclose the abuse. Both Jane and her fiancé, Andrew Sabourin, testified that Jane had disclosed general information about the assaults to Sabourin, her then-boyfriend, in 2011. She then disclosed the incidents to others in May 2013—first to her aunt Yanitza Rentas, then to her mother, and finally to the police.
Both Jane and Sabourin testified that Sabourin insisted that Jane disclose the incidents of molestations, and that Jane ultimately did so. Jane and Sabourin both testified that, because of the incidents’ traumatic effect on Jane, she did not allow any man other than Sabourin to watch their daughter. This included one occasion when Jane was at work and Sabourin needed to leave home for a job interview; Jane did not allow their daughter to be left with Sabourin's own father. Jane testified that, because of the impact of this rule on her and Sabourin's relationship, as well as on her relationship with members of both their families, Sabourin gave Jane an ultimatum: either reveal the incidents to her family or possibly end the relationship.
In his closing argument, defense counsel suggested that the true motivation for Jane's allegations was not Sabourin's ultimatum, but, rather, Jane seeking vengeance on defendant for punishing Janelle. Janelle had testified that, sometime between 2012 and 2013, defendant punished her for text messages referencing drugs and alcohol that he had found on her cell phone. Janelle stated that her punishment included both having her telephone taken away and being told not to associate with certain people, including Jane. According to Janelle, she told Jane about the punishment in January 2013, shortly after it happened. However, Jane testified that she did not know exactly when Janelle's telephone was taken away, nor did she know who had inflicted the punishment.
On November 23, 2015, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all four remaining counts. On December 1, 2015, defendant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, asking the trial justice to vacate the judgment of conviction. The motion was heard before the trial justice on December 7, 2015. The trial justice denied the motion for a new trial in a bench decision rendered on the same day. On January 25, 2016, the trial justice sentenced defendant.
The defendant filed a premature notice of appeal on January 25, 2016, and a judgment of conviction was ultimately entered on June 30, 2016, placing defendant's appeal properly before us. See Butler v. Gavek , 245...
To continue reading
Request your trial