Preview:

FILED
June 13, 2013

In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
) )

No. 28327-5-111

)
)

v.
RODOLFO RAMIREZ TINAJERO, Appellant. SIDDOWAY,1. -

)
) ) )

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

)

Rodolfo Ramirez Tinajero was convicted of the first degree rape

of a woman he lured into an orchard with a promise of work. Among the evidence against him was testimony of another woman who claimed to have been the victim of an attempted rape by Mr. Tinajero} several months earlier, under similar circumstances. He was sentenced as a persistent offender to life in prison without the possibility of release. He challenges his conviction on a number of grounds, with several arising out of . the court's admission of testimony from the victim of the earlier alleged rape. We find only one error: that limited hearsay evidence was admitted in violation of his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because

} The defendant is referred to as Mr. Tinajero throughout the record, which appears to be his preference.

No. 28327-5-111 State v. Tinajero

other evidence was available to establish the same facts, the constitutional violation was harmless. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Yakima police arrested Rodolfo Ramirez Tinajero for the first degree rape of Maria V. in August 2007, within a week and a half after the rape occurred. Mr. Tinajero had previously been identified as a suspect or person of interest in the attempted first degree rape of another woman, Beatriz S., which had taken place four months earlier, in April. Maria V., the victim in this case, had been working in the fields in 2007 and on the day of the rape drove her car, alone, to the Buena area, hoping to find work. She made several stops and inquiries without success until encountering Mr. Tinajero, who told her that he could direct her to a place where workers were being hired and that she should follow his car. She followed him to an orchard where he stopped, stepped out of his car, walked to her car, and told her he believed they were not going to start work that day. Seeing that there was no one working there, she said she was going to leave, at which point he said "no," pulled out a knife, and said "you're not going to leave, you're going to do what I tell you to do now." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 654. He ordered her to walk into the orchard. When he reached a remote location, he raped her, holding his knife to her neck. 2


No. 28327-5-III State v. Tinajero

After he was finished, he walked her back to where their cars were parked, ordered her to stand at her car looking away from his, and then drove off. She drove back to her home, where her husband saw that she was upset and asked her what was wrong. She only reluctantly told him what had happened. He drove her to the police station where she spoke to officers. They suggested that she go to the hospital, which she did, the next morning; a rape kit was taken. She later spoke to Yakima County Sheriff s Detective Richard Mottice. Her description of the man who raped her included the fact that he had a gap in his teeth. For that reason, Detective Mottice showed her a photo montage prepared for his investigation of the attempted rape of Beatriz S.; Ms. S. had provided a similar description of the man who assaulted her. Mr. Tinajero had a gap in his teeth and his picture had been included in the montage. Ms. S. had not identified anyone from the montage but Ms. V. immediately identified Mr. Tinajero as the man who raped her. Mr. Tinajero was charged, an arrest warrant issued, and he was arrested within a few days. Following his arrest, Detective Mottice went to speak with him at the Yakima County jail, where Mr. Tinajero was read his Miranda 2 rights and agreed to give a recorded statement. When the detective asked Mr. Tinajero ifhe forced Ms. V. to have sex with him, Mr. Tinajero replied, "It happened, but-but not forcefully. It wasn't

2

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
3


No. 28327

Download 28327-5.pdf

Washington Law