State v. Reynaldo Gomez
116 A.3d 216
R.I.2015Background
- On Sept. 13, 2011, Jessica (pseudonym), an 18‑year‑old cashier, was alone behind the counter at a small farm stand when defendant Reynaldo Gomez entered, lingered close, and touched her inner thigh and swept over her shorts toward her genital area. She pushed his hand away, said “no,” and later told him she was 14 as a defensive statement; he left quickly.
- A customer (Lamoureux) arrived shortly after, found Jessica visibly upset, obtained the car description and plate, and called 9‑1‑1; police arrived ~10 minutes later.
- Officer Proulx spoke with Jessica at the scene; she said she had been assaulted and gave the license plate number. The trial court admitted those statements under the excited‑utterance exception to hearsay.
- Jessica later gave a written statement and identified Gomez in a photo array the next day. Gomez was tried by jury and convicted of second‑degree sexual assault (G.L. 1956 § 11‑37‑4(2)).
- Post‑verdict, the trial justice denied Gomez’s motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. Sentence: 10 years (1 year to serve, 9 suspended) with sex‑offender registration and counseling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gomez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Motion for new trial — weight/credibility | State: Trial justice properly acted as 13th juror and reasonably credited complaining witness and corroborating witnesses. | Gomez: Trial justice overlooked/misconstrued critical inconsistencies and credibility issues; verdict against weight of evidence. | Affirmed — trial justice gave adequate reasons, credited witnesses, and did not misconceive material evidence. |
| 2) Motion for judgment of acquittal — force or coercion element | State: Evidence (verbal refusal, physical push, victim’s distress) shows resistance and thus sufficient force to submit to jury. | Gomez: State failed to prove force/coercion; touching could have been accidental; argument not preserved below. | Affirmed — even if not preserved, record shows reasonable evidence of force ("no" and pushing hand) sufficient for jury. |
| 3) Admissibility of Jessica’s statements to police — excited utterance exception | State: Statements made within ~10 minutes while victim trembling/upset were spontaneous and trustworthy; admissible. | Gomez: Statements were hearsay and not properly within excited‑utterance exception. | Affirmed — trial justice did not abuse discretion; short lapse and declarant’s distraught condition supported excited‑utterance admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Storey, 102 A.3d 641 (R.I. 2014) (trial‑justice role when reviewing Rule 33 new‑trial motions)
- State v. Goodreau, 560 A.2d 318 (R.I. 1989) (force must be proven beyond that necessary to commit assault; victim resistance relevant)
- State v. Oliveira, 961 A.2d 299 (R.I. 2008) (standards for excited‑utterance admissibility and spontaneity)
- State v. Torres, 787 A.2d 1214 (R.I. 2002) (excited‑utterance hearsay exception explained)
- State v. Jimenez, 33 A.3d 724 (R.I. 2011) (deference to trial justice credibility findings)