793 N.W.2d 451
N.D.2011Background
- Gomez was charged in January 2009 with continuous sexual abuse of a child under NDCC § 12.1-20-03.1, a class AA felony.
- The State alleged Gomez forced Jane Doe, then twelve, to touch his penis over his clothing to arouse or satisfy his desires, with acts occurring nearly daily May 2008–January 5, 2009.
- A 2009 jury trial followed; Gomez objected to the jury panel’s makeup and sought a mistrial alleging a non-representative cross-section, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing was not pursued.
- After the State’s case, Gomez moved for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, contending the acts did not constitute sexual contact.
- The jury found Gomez guilty; he was sentenced to life imprisonment with the balance suspended after 30 years.
- Gomez appeals, challenging the lack of a special verdict form, sufficiency of the evidence, the jury cross-section claim, and the Eighth Amendment proportionality of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to issue a special verdict form | Gomez | Gomez | No special verdict form required |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove three or more acts | Gomez | Gomez | Evidence supported three or more acts; conviction affirmed |
| Jury cross-section fairness and Hispanic representation | Gomez | Gomez | No Sixth Amendment violation; no evidentiary hearing showing underrepresentation or systematic exclusion |
| Eighth Amendment proportionality of life sentence | Gomez | Gomez | Sentence not grossly disproportionate; constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Steen, 2000 ND 152 (ND Sup. Ct. 2000) (special verdicts generally not required; allowed only in limited circumstances)
- State v. Sheldon, 312 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1981) (statutory sentencing findings may trigger special findings; not applicable here)
- State v. McClary, 2004 ND 98 (ND Supreme Court 2004) (jury instructions must reflect applicable law; jurors presumed to follow instructions)
- State v. Robles, 535 N.W.2d 729 (N.D. 1995) (distinctive group; fair-cross-section claim requires statistical evidence)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (three-prong test for fair-cross-section claim)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (narrow proportionality principle; extreme punishments barred only in rare cases)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (Eighth Amendment proportionality in non-capital cases; strict scrutiny not required)