State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza
234 Ariz. 259
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Victim: 13-year-old girl sleeping over at defendant Oscar Mendoza’s home; she testified Mendoza entered her bedroom after she fell asleep, lay on top of her, and “humped” her by rubbing his penis/crotch area against her butt through clothing and a blanket.
- Victim was clothed, was lying on her stomach under a blanket, did not feel an exposed penis but felt genital-area contact; she reported the incident the same day.
- Mendoza was tried by jury, convicted of child molestation (A.R.S. § 13-1410(A)), and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
- Mendoza moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the proved conduct did not meet the statutory definition of molestation; the court denied the motion and convicted him.
- On appeal Mendoza argued (1) insufficient evidence because there was no proof of direct or sufficiently proximate genital touching and (2) trial-court jury instructions were flawed, including failure to properly instruct on burden/standard for lack-of-sexual-motivation defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for child molestation (sexual contact) | State: Victim’s testimony that Mendoza ‘humped’ her gave rational jurors substantial evidence of indirect genital touching | Mendoza: Contact through clothing/blanket that didn’t allow victim to feel penis/testes insufficient to prove sexual contact/manipulation of genitals | Affirmed — testimony supported inference of indirect genital touching; conviction supported by substantial evidence |
| Jury instruction defining child molestation | State: Instruction tracked statutory language and adequately conveyed elements | Mendoza: Instruction was confusing, a run-on that failed to explain elements in plain English | No reversible error — instruction accurate and not prejudicial |
| Instruction / burden on affirmative defense (lack of sexual motivation) | State: Ordinary burden on prosecution to prove offense; court’s instructions and closing argument did not shift burden to defendant | Mendoza: Court failed to instruct jury on burden/standard for proving lack of sexual motivation; jury might think defendant must disprove sexual motivation beyond reasonable doubt | No prejudicial error — trial court’s instructions and counsel’s arguments did not shift burden; omission did not prejudice Mendoza |
| Preservation & standard of review for instruction errors | State: Issues not preserved; review limited to fundamental, prejudicial error | Mendoza: Claims of instructional error raised on appeal | Reviewed for fundamental prejudice; none found, so affirmance upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pennington, 149 Ariz. 167 (App. 1985) (indirect touching includes touching through clothing)
- State v. Marshall, 197 Ariz. 496 (App. 2000) (child victim may be the “person” who is caused to engage in sexual contact; emotional harm possible despite lack of direct contact)
- State v. Jerousek, 121 Ariz. 420 (1979) (defendant may be convicted on victim’s uncorroborated testimony in molestation cases)
- State v. Detrich, 188 Ariz. 57 (1997) (testimony of “humping” sufficient to show sexual contact for abuse); State v. Detrich, 178 Ariz. 380 (1994) (same line of authority on ‘‘humping’’ as sexual contact)
- State v. Roberts, 126 Ariz. 92 (1980) (appellate sufficiency review views evidence in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)