Opinion ID: 2318093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Second Day of Trial

Text: The next morning, the trial judge denied Gomez's motion for a mistrial. The trial judge explained from the bench as follows: I've thought about it over the evening. . . . And it's hard on a cold record. And I say that so those who may look at this beyond me will maybe appreciate this. The way that it came into the trial from my perspective was simply that the sister, who is married to the defendant, when there were questions about the custody battle that was going on, the questions and the responses, I think it is fair to say, reflected that she was concerned about the welfare of the children and, therefore, wanted custody of them. And the way it came out was that because her sister was told about the incident involving the defendant, she was concerned about all her children. And since the jury doesn't know of his prior conviction, doesn't know that there was anything of that nature, it is a fair inference from the testimony that this was simply an effort by the sister to protect the children based upon the facts she had been told by the witness of the incident involving her daughter. So I am not granting the motion for a new trial or a mistrial based upon the testimony of the mother. If she is going to testify again, however, before she gets on, I'll need to tell her a few things. The following exchange then occurred: The Court: You want me to give some cautionary instruction? You may, but you need to think about whether it highlights what was said. Defense counsel: I've thought about it, and I've talked it over with some colleagues, a colleague, and it's extremely close, Judge.    The Court: I can perhaps say, if you wanted me to, that the case that there is only one case here that you're being asked to try, and that's the allegation made by the young girl who testified yesterday, and that's it. And if there was any implication at all in any testimony yesterday about some other case or some other incident, that's simply not relevant to this proceeding, and you're only here to try this one allegation. Either it does focus on the fact that this is it; or it highlights it, worse; or three, they say, I don't even know what you're talking about, because they didn't pick it up. Defense counsel: What's yourwhat would the Court, sua sponte, if counsel never brought it up The Court: If counsel doesn't ask, my inclination would be not to highlight it and leave it as it is, because I think at the moment, it is a fair inference that she was aware of herher sister was aware of the incident involving this young complaining witness who testified yesterday, and she was concerned about her child too, based upon the information that she had. That's a fair inference from the question and what happened. . . . Defense counsel: Right, but that'smy concern is just that one short phrase was enough that a jury in a case like this, where there'sI think all of us would agree it is extremely close. The Court: I don'tI'm not saying that if the Supreme Court decided that that was too close, that I could say, Gee, I'm upset that I made the wrong call. I think it is concerning, but in thinking about it overnight and thinking about the context in which it was said and the question that was asked, I don't perceive it as being as significant as if you just simply read the answer in the cold. And I'm not inclined to try to give a curative instruction unless counsel because I think that's a litigation decision that needs to be made as to whether or not you want it or not. If you want it, I'll give it. If you don't want it, I will leave it alone. Because if I do it independently, I'm perhaps affecting your litigation strategy. Defense counsel ultimately did not request a curative instruction. After the State presented its case, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the testimony of the alleged victim in court was extremely unclear. The trial judge denied that motion and relevantly explained: [S.C.], who is nine today, in the courtroom, for a nine-year-old, did remarkably well in testifying concerning the events. And that, together with the investigative tape that was done by the CAC, is certainly sufficient to establish the charge. Defense counsel then presented his case, attempting to establish that S.C.'s mother and aunt (now Gomez's ex-wife) had fabricated the allegation of rape. Defense counsel called several witnesses, including S.C.'s mother. Before defense counsel began his direct examination of S.C.'s mother, the following exchange occurred: Defense counsel: Your Honor, the defense calls [S.C.'s mother]. The Court: You can have a seat since you've been sworn previously. Interpreter: Thank you, Your Honor. The Court: Thank you for coming back from Sussex. Although the trial judge stated, you've been sworn previously, it is unclear from the record whether the trial judge directed that statement towards the interpreter or S.C.'s mother, who had testified the previous day.