STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CLAUDIO J. MARQUEZ-GUZMAN(13-02-0305, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0820-15T3

Background

Defendant Claudio Marquez-Guzman lived with his girlfriend Terry (T.L.), their children, and Terry’s stepdaughter Lisa (L.L.). Lisa disclosed that defendant had inappropriately touched her and said he threatened to cut out her tongue to keep her silent.
Lisa told an adult cousin (Caroline) about the abuse; Caroline took Lisa to a hospital where Dr. Manoj Sheth examined her. Police and a prosecutor’s investigator recorded a video statement from Lisa in which she described and demonstrated the sexual contact.
At trial the State sought admission of multiple out-of-court statements by Lisa under the tender years exception, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27): the recorded investigator statement, Lisa’s statements to Caroline, Lisa’s earlier statement to her mother, and the hospital disclosure to Dr. Sheth. The trial judge admitted all as trustworthy.
Defendant gave a videotaped statement to police admitting touching Lisa once on the outside of her vagina, but at trial denied sexual touching, claiming only nonsexual playful contact and offering an alternative explanation for the tongue-threat comment.
A jury convicted defendant of second-degree sexual assault and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child; the court sentenced him to an aggregate 10-year term with parole ineligibility. Defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of multiple out-of-court statements under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27) and whether their cumulative nature required exclusion under N.J.R.E. 403	State: Each statement was trustworthy and probative; court may admit multiple statements under the tender years exception	Defendant: Admission of multiple, similar statements was unduly prejudicial, cumulative, and should have been excluded under Rule 403 (argument not raised below; reviewed for plain error)	Court: No plain error; judge did not abuse discretion — statements were reliable and probative and their admission did not substantially outweigh probative value
Admission of recorded statement in addition to live testimony	State: Video was closer in time and corroborative; probative of consistency	Defendant: Video was repetitive and prejudicial (raised on appeal)	Court: Video admissible; consistent with precedent that near-contemporaneous recorded statements have probative value
Admission of the statement to mother made years earlier	State: Statement trustworthy and consistent with later statements; entitled to be presented	Defendant: (implicates cumulative/prejudicial argument)	Court: Trial judge properly found statement trustworthy and admissible under the tender years exception
Sentence severity (10-year aggregate for two second-degree convictions)	State: Sentence lawful and supported by aggravating/mitigating balance	Defendant: Sentence is manifestly excessive and should be reduced	Court: Sentence affirmed — adequately supported by record and not shocking to the judicial conscience

Key Cases Cited

State v. D.R., 109 N.J. 348 (1988) (establishes tender years hearsay reliability standard)
State v. D.G., 157 N.J. 112 (1999) (trial court should consider N.J.R.E. 403 when admitting multiple tender-years statements)
State v. Burr, 392 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 2007) (recorded statement probative because closer in time and consistent with trial testimony)
State v. J.A.C., 210 N.J. 281 (2012) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings—deference to trial court absent abuse of discretion)
State v. Buda, 195 N.J. 278 (2008) (standards for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. C.H., 264 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 1993) (permitting multiple witnesses to relate victim’s statements under tender years exception)
State v. E.B., 348 N.J. Super. 336 (App. Div.) (upholding admission of multiple witness statements under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27))
State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601 (2010) (sentencing review standards — not shocking to judicial conscience)
State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165 (2009) (standards for reviewing sentencing decisions)