Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A06-1394 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jorge Daniel Morales-Mulato, Appellant. Filed February 19, 2008 Affirmed Stoneburner, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 05054022 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Jean Burdorf, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent) John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Lydia Villalva Lijo, Assistant Public Defender, Suite 300, 540 Fairview Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55104 (for appellant) Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Wright, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. Suppression is not an appropriate remedy for violation of a foreign-national

detainees rights under article 36 of the Vienna Convention, but such a violation may be considered in determining whether a custodial statement was voluntary. 2. In a trial involving criminal sexual conduct with a child, the opinion of a

CornerHouse interviewer that, based on complainants interview, complainant has been

sexually abused, is vouching testimony and inadmissible except in an unusual case where the helpfulness of such testimony to the jury outweighs its potential for prejudice to the defendant. OPINION STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of and sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the district court erred by (1) failing to suppress his custodial statement as a sanction for violation of his rights under article 36 of the Vienna Convention; (2) allowing the CornerHouse interviewer to opine that, based on an interview, the complainant had been sexually abused; and (3) imposing an upward sentencing departure. In a pro se supplemental brief, appellant additionally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. FACTS Appellant Jorge Morales-Mulato is a Mexican national who, at the time of trial in this matter, was 35 years old and had lived and worked in the United States for approximately four years. In the spring of 2004, appellant became involved in a sexual relationship with Alma Rosa Olivas, whose daughter (complainant) was ten years old. In August 2005, complainant told Olivas that appellant had sexually abused her. Olivas and complainant went to the Domestic Abuse Service Center (the center) to obtain an order for protection against appellant. The center alerted the police, and on August 23, 2005, complainant was interviewed at CornerHouse, a multi-disciplinary center. CornerHouse

2

interviewers are trained to conduct videotaped forensic interviews of children who may have been abused or who may have witnessed a violent crime. Appellant was subsequently arrested and taken to the police station where, with the services of an interpreter, he was questioned by Sergeant Knight, of the Minneapolis Police Department, and Lynn Hoff, a Hennepin County Child Protective Services investigator. Knight gave appellant a Miranda advisory through the interpreter. After stating each right, Knight asked appellant if he understood that right. When appellant indicated that he did not understand the right to remain silent, Knight restated the right until appellant indicated his understanding. Appellant said that he understood each of the remaining rights. Appellant declined an attorney and agreed to answer questions from Knight and Hoff. Appellant initially denied having any sexual contact with complainant, but ultimately confessed to touching and penetrating complainant, including having oral sex with her once. Appellant was charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat.

Download A06-1394, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jorge Daniel Morales-Mulato, Appel

Minnesota Law