Opinion ID: 2318093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Guilty Verdicts and Post-Trial Rulings

Text: The jury ultimately found Gomez guilty of two counts of rape first degree. Gomez moved for a new trial on two grounds: (1) he was prejudiced when S.C. entered the courtroom and testified while holding a teddy bear, and (2) he was prejudiced when S.C.'s mother referred to Gomez's commission of a similar sexual offense during her testimony. But the trial judge denied that motion. In a Letter Opinion, [3] the trial judge addressed the first ground as follows: Counsel asserts he did not object at the time since he did not want to be viewed in a bad light as the one who forced the young child to give up her security animal. The fallacy in Defendant's argument is that there was clearly an opportunity for counsel to object and raise the issue with the Court before her testimony began. The Court questioned the young victim outside the presence of the jury prior to her testimony to ensure she appreciated the difference between right and wrong and the importance of telling the truth in the courtroom. If counsel had a concern, he should have raised it with the Court at that time. There was no objection made, and the Court finds that there was no prejudice by this conduct. This young girl was obviously traumatized by the conduct of the Defendant, but in spite of the difficulty of coming into a courtroom full of strangers to relay what had occurred, the testimony of this 9 year old was compelling and convincing. It was the impact of what she said during her testimony, and not the teddy bear, that convicted the Defendant. [4] The trial judge then addressed the second ground as follows: The specifics of the Defendant's prior conviction were not given to the jury nor does the Court believe it is a fair interpretation of the statements in the context in which they were given that the Defendant had been convicted of some other offense. The Court offered to give a curative instruction, but in deference to counsel's desire not to highlight the issue further, it agreed not to give such an instruction. The Court believes this was an appropriate decision by counsel and frankly in light of the significant testimony by the defense of the alleged efforts to put the Defendant and his brother in sexually compromising positions, this isolated statement had no bearing on the outcome of this trial. [5] Thereafter, the trial judge sentenced Gomez to forty years in prison. This appeal followed. Gomez raises five arguments on appeal: (1) that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Gomez's mistrial motion after S.C.'s mother referred to Gomez's commission of a similar sexual offense against S.C.'s cousin, (2) that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the video of the CAC interview because the State did not satisfy the foundational requirements of title 11, section 3507 of the Delaware Code, (3) that the trial judge erred in failing to swear the interpreter at the trial, (4) that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support the rape first degree convictions, and (5) that the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting S.C. to hold a teddy bear while she testified. We find merit to Gomez's first argument. Because we conclude that Gomez is entitled to a new trial, we need not decide whether Gomez's remaining arguments have merit. But, we comment on three of those arguments to provide guidance for Gomez's new trial, as well as other cases.