STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GUILERMO SANTAMARIAÂ (10-10-1436, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)Â, A-2012-12T3

Background

Defendant, a former middle-school science teacher, was indicted in 2010 for sexual offenses and official misconduct based on alleged sexual encounters with a student, H.B., between 1997 and 2004; trial convicting him on multiple counts and sentencing to 20 years aggregate.
The State’s case relied primarily on H.B.’s testimony; there was no physical forensic evidence or confession in the record.
H.B. testified the sexual relationship began when she was a minor (first intercourse shortly after her 14th birthday) and continued into adulthood; many alleged acts predated 2003 while some alleged acts (on school property during college visits) could fall within the seven-year window before the 2010 indictment.
Investigations in 1999–2002 (DYFS referral, emails, photos) occurred; defendant’s ex-wife produced a CD of ~71 photos taken in late July 2002 showing H.B. (then >18) and defendant engaged in sexual acts; the State admitted >50 of those photos at trial.
Defendant moved for acquittal on one official-misconduct count; the trial court denied the motion. On appeal the Appellate Division: (1) dismissed one official-misconduct count as time‑barred; and (2) reversed and remanded for a new trial because admission of the numerous sexually explicit photos was unduly prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether count charging official misconduct (alleged through July 4, 2002) was time‑barred	Count alleged continuing misconduct; prosecution proper if any acts within limitations	Acts alleged in that count all occurred >7 years before indictment; barred by statute of limitations	Dismissed count four: official‑misconduct allegations up to July 4, 2002 were barred by the seven‑year statute of limitations (N.J.S.A. 2C:1‑6)
Whether count charging official misconduct for acts during college years survived limitations	Count five alleged sex on school property during freshman/sophomore year — potentially within 7 years	Count five dates arguably infirm too	Count five not time‑barred on statute‑of‑limitations grounds (could fall within Oct 1, 2003–2010 window)
Admissibility of >50 sexually explicit photos of defendant and adult H.B.	Photos show an ongoing sexual relationship and tend to prove opportunity/continuity; relevant to charged offenses	Photos were taken after H.B. turned 18, highly inflammatory, cumulative, and their probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice; no limiting instruction given	Reversed convictions (except jurisdictional dismissal above) and remanded: the mass admission of graphic adult photos was unduly prejudicial and cumulative under N.J.R.E. 403 and 404(b); trial court should have excluded them sua sponte or given a limiting instruction
Prosecutorial comment on defendant’s silence during a recorded dinner confrontation	Commenting on silence was legitimate argument given context	Improper comment on silence can violate defendant’s rights; issue preserved on appeal	Court did not decide on merits because reversal and remand rendered many issues moot, but cautioned prosecutors to avoid impermissible comment on silence at retrial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Diorio, 216 N.J. 598 (N.J. 2014) (statute‑of‑limitations is an absolute bar; balances public interest and defendant’s right to prompt prosecution)
Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1970) (continuing‑offense analysis; offenses are not continuing unless language or nature shows legislative intent)
State v. Weleck, 10 N.J. 355 (N.J. 1952) (official‑misconduct allegations spanning time can be prosecuted if acts within limitations window exist)
State v. Buckley, 216 N.J. 249 (N.J. 2013) (defining probative value and relevance under N.J.R.E. 401)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (N.J. 1992) (four‑part test for admissibility of other‑crimes/acts evidence under N.J.R.E. 404(b))
State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (N.J. 2011) (distinguishing intrinsic vs. extrinsic other‑acts evidence)
State v. Taylor, 350 N.J. Super. 20 (App. Div. 2002) (cumulative inflammatory evidence may be admissible but probative value can be outweighed by prejudice)
State v. Slattery, 239 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 1990) (plain error where substantial quantity of inadmissible, highly prejudicial evidence introduced)
State v. Abdullah, 372 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 2004) (graphic/sexually explicit evidence may be excluded when its inflammatory potential outweighs probative value)