ILNews

Judges uphold molestation convictions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man's convictions of child molesting because it agreed the victim's recantation of the allegations weren't worthy of credit.

In Mario Martinez v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0905-CR-289, Mario Martinez argued the trial court should have granted his motion to correct error and ordered a new trial after W.M., his 12-year-old victim and niece, recanted her story that Martinez molested her several years earlier.

W.M. first reported the molestation when she was 10 years old to facilitators of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's Body Safety Program. She later told the same story to a child forensic officer at IMPD and while on the stand at Martinez's trial. After he was convicted of one count of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting, W.M., by private counsel, filed a motion to intervene and set aside the jury verdict. She gave a deposition to her attorney that Martinez hadn't molested her and she made it up because she was mad at him for hitting her a few years earlier. Neither the state nor Martinez's counsel were notified or present during the deposition.

As a result of the deposition, Martinez filed a motion to correct error because the recantation was newly discovered evidence that warranted a new trial. The trial court denied the motion, finding the recantation wasn't worthy of credit.

On appeal, Martinez argued the state is required to designate new evidence in the form of affidavits to counter W.M.'s recantation; the state had designated W.M.'s pretrial interview and pretrial deposition, which is sufficient to counter her post-trial version of events, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

Just as in Best v. State, 418 N.E.2d 316, 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), the trial court was correct to deny Martinez's motion for a new trial. W.M.'s recantation first occurred in a private deposition outside of the presence of anyone representing the state, wrote the chief judge. Her story was consistent until after her uncle was convicted and she overheard her parents say he could be sentenced to 50 years in prison. It was also possible W.M. recanted her story due to her mother's fears her marriage would fall apart because of the conviction and her mother was being ostracized in her community.

Under these circumstances, the appellate court can't say the trial court abused its discretion by finding W.M.'s recantation wasn't worthy of credit and denying Martinez's motion for a new trial.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT