Ramirez v. People
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 18
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Ramirez plus six-count Information charged three counts of Aggravated Rape with Domestic Violence and three counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact with Domestic Violence.
- Trial court denied Ramirez’s Motion to Suppress and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal; convictions remained on three counts.
- J.R., a minor, reported sexual abuse by Ramirez at a school conference in late Nov 2007.
- Ramirez confessed to detectives after Miranda warnings; medical exam showed evidence of sexual contact.
- Evidence included statements from teacher, guidance counselor, and detective regarding J.R.’s prior statements; J.R. testified she lied at trial.
- On appeal, Ramirez contends suppression error, hearsay/Confrontation issues, insufficient evidence for Count I, and denial of a Rule 29 motion; court affirms the Amended Judgment and Sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress statements at the parent conference | Ramirez argues Fifth Amendment coercion | People contend no custodial interrogation and no Miranda warning required | No error; statements not barred by Miranda; no custody and non-law-enforcement officials present |
| Admission of hearsay testimony and Confrontation Clause impact | Ramirez contends hearsay violates Confrontation Clause | Testimony admissible under Crawford when declarant testifies and is cross-examined | No Confrontation Clause violation; declarant (J.R.) testified and was cross-examined; hearsay properly admitted |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count I (Unlawful Sexual Contact First Degree) | Evidence shows victim under 13 and contact occurred | Age misstatement in information; may affect credibility | Sufficient evidence; age element satisfied by under-13 status; verdict affirmed |
| Denial of Motion for Judgment of Acquittal | Hearsay and sufficiency arguments require acquittal | Evidence supports conviction under statute | No error; denial affirmed; evidence supports conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (Miranda custodial interrogation principles applied to compelled statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires testimonial statements to be cross-examined when declarant testifies)
- United States v. King, 604 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2010) (five-factor custody test applied to Miranda custody analysis)
- Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1985) (limitations on prior statements and confrontation when declarant testifies)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (U.S. 2004) (totality of the circumstances in determining custody)