Cisneros v. State
299 Ga. 841
| Ga. | 2016Background
- Gustavo Cisneros was indicted for multiple armed robberies, burglaries, and sexual offenses arising from a series of early‑morning masked home invasions in Gwinnett County in 2004; multiple co‑indictees testified for the State.
- Victims at four relevant homes described similar facts: groups of Spanish/English‑speaking masked men with guns, victims forced face‑down, hands bound, demands for money/drugs, lengthy ransacking, and thefts of cash, jewelry, and vehicles.
- Co‑indictees Jose Martinez and Gonzalo Ortega testified that Cisneros acted as driver/lookout and shared in dividing proceeds; Ortega specifically implicated Cisneros in the Glenwhite and Sandune invasions.
- Cisneros was convicted on numerous counts; the Court of Appeals reversed some convictions for insufficient evidence but affirmed convictions for four invasions; the Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- Key contested legal points: (1) whether modus operandi evidence alone sufficiently corroborated accomplice Ortega’s testimony to sustain certain convictions; (2) whether evidence supported convicting Cisneros as a party to a sexual battery committed by a co‑actor; (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the courtroom interpreter or demanding a hearing on interpretation accuracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cisneros) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice testimony (Glenwhite & Sandune) | Modus operandi across multiple invasions (same county, short period, similar masks, bilingual perpetrators, binding victims, ransacking, vehicle theft) suffices to corroborate Ortega’s ID of Cisneros. | Modus operandi alone is insufficient to directly connect Cisneros to those two specific invasions; accomplice testimony required independent corroboration. | Held: Modus operandi evidence was sufficient corroboration; convictions for Glenwhite and Sandune upheld. |
| Guilt as party to sexual battery at Skyview Lane | Cisneros participated in planning/executing Skyview robbery as driver/lookout and shared proceeds; sexual battery was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the violent plan. | There was no evidence Cisneros knew a sexual battery would occur or that he intentionally aided/abetted that sexual offense. | Held: Evidence allowed jury to find Cisneros guilty as a party to sexual battery; foreseeability and participation supported the conviction. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to courtroom interpretation | No prejudice: accused spoke English, counsel communicated with him in English, interpreter’s occasional non‑literal renderings did not alter legally significant meaning. | Trial counsel should have objected to interpreter inaccuracies and requested a formal hearing under interpreter rules; expert review later showed significant mistranslations affecting defense. | Held: Even if counsel could have objected or sought a hearing, Cisneros failed to prove resulting prejudice under Strickland; convictions stand. |
| Counsel’s failure to demand interpreter hearing under Court Rules | State: No demonstrated prejudice from interpretation; record showed interpreter sought clarification and corrected errors; jurors attested ability to follow official interpretation. | Cisneros: Counsel had obligation to request hearing once juror raised concerns; failure was deficient and prejudicial. | Held: Better practice would be to request a hearing, but absence of such a hearing did not establish prejudice; Strickland prejudice not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel two‑prong test)
- Lindsey v. State, 295 Ga. 343 (jury assesses sufficiency of accomplice corroboration)
- Veal v. State, 298 Ga. 691 (modus operandi corroboration upheld)
- Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601 (similar‑modus evidence admissible to prove identity)