Estate of Haugen
2011 ND 28
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Gomez charged in Jan 2009 with continuous sexual abuse of a child under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03.1 for acts with a 12-year-old (Jane Doe) from May 2008 to Jan 5, 2009.
- Trial occurred October 2009; Gomez objected to jury panel makeup and moved for mistrial alleging lack of fair cross-section; evidenced hearing requested but not pursued; motion denied December 9, 2009.
- Post-trial, Gomez moved for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 claiming the acts did not constitute sexual contacts as defined by statute; district court denied.
- Jury found Gomez guilty; he was sentenced to life imprisonment with the balance suspended after 30 years.
- On appeal, Gomez contends (i) no special verdict form was required, (ii) the evidence was insufficient, (iii) the district court erred in not considering de facto ethnic/racial jury cross-section challenge, and (iv) the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a special verdict form required here? | Gomez | Gomez | No special verdict form required |
| Was the evidence sufficient to convict of continuous sexual abuse? | State | Gomez | Evidence sufficient; three or more sexual acts/contacts shown |
| Did Gomez establish a fair-cross-section violation based on jury ethnicity/race? | State | Gomez | No prima facie violation; no evidentiary hearing or data to prove underrepresentation or systematic exclusion |
| Does the sentence violate the Eighth Amendment’s proportionality standard? | State | Gomez | Not grossly disproportionate; within statutory range |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Steen, 2000 ND 152 (ND) (rules on verdict forms; special verdicts disfavored but allowed in limited circumstances)
- State v. Sheldon, 312 N.W.2d 367 (ND) (special findings may be required when statute mandates and not essential to offense)
- State v. Robles, 535 N.W.2d 729 (ND 1995) (fair-cross-section requirement; prima facie test for distinct groups)
- State v. Martin, 2001 ND 189 (ND) (three or more acts constituting offense; jury unanimity required for counts)
- State v. Haugen, 2007 ND 195 (ND) (jury instructions must fairly advise on applicable law)