Appellant Maurilio Martinez appeals his convictions for the rape and murder of Joy Morris.
During the autopsy, the medical examiner performed a rape kit and discovered spermatozoa inside the victim’s vagina, although there was no bruising to her genitals. The medical examiner testified Morris hadbutalbital, a type of barbiturate, in her blood in an amount that was sufficient to render her unconscious. He also opined that the victim’s unconsciousness would explain why there was no bruising of her genitalia upon being sexually assaulted. The medical examiner testified that the contents of Morris’s stomach indicated that she had eaten approximately an hour before her death. The medical examiner concluded the cause of death was ligature strangulation and explained that it appeared the phone cord had been wrapped around Morris’s neck about two or three times and that the hemorrhaging in her neck suggested the phone cord had been pulled on her neck from right to left and from front to back. Morris also had “grab marks” on her arms, scratches on her body and extremities, and abrasions and a laceration to her face.
(b) OCGA § 16-6-1 (a) (1) provides that a person commits rape when that person has carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Appellant argues that because there was no injury to Morris’s genitalia that the evidence was insufficient to show that any carnal knowledge of Morris was forcible. This argument is without merit. “Vaginal trauma and physical injury are not necessarily a constituent element of the criminal offense of rape.” Searcy v. State,
2. Appellant alleges trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move for a directed verdict on the charge of rape.
In light of this Court’s holding in [Division 1 (b)] that the evidence adduced at trial satisfied the requirements of Jackson v. Virginia, . . . counsel’s failure to move for a directed verdict [on the rape count] presents an insufficient ground as a matter of law for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State,
3. During closing argument, the prosecutor argued as follows:
[The crime scene investigator] measured from the ground to where that [forearm] impression is left on the hood, and guess who it matched? Joy Morris. From the ground to where that impression is to Joy Morris’s height. So where did the sexual assault and rape happen? The hood of the car. He had her bent over the hood of that car.
Appellant objected on the ground that the statement assumed facts not in evidence, namely that the sexual assault occurred over the hood of the car. The trial court overruled his objection. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sustain his objection. We disagree.
Attorneys are generally granted wide latitude in making closing arguments and may argue points that may be reasonably inferred from the evidence. See Menefee v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on or about October 31, 2002. On March 26, 2010, a Lowndes County grand jury indicted appellant for malice murder and rape. Appellant was tried before a jury on February 4-6, 2013, with the jury returning verdicts of guilty on both charges. The trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison for malice murder and 20 years to be served concurrently for rape. Appellant moved for a ne w trial on March 4, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the motion on July 25, 2015, and the trial court denied the motion on August 21, 2015. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 24, 2015, and, upon receipt of the record, the case was docketed in this Court for the April 2017 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
At trial, the State showed that appellant, Miguel Santizo, and Sebastian Moreno were one and the same person by presenting DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, and in-court identifications by law enforcement officers who had past encounters with appellant going by one of his aliases.
