State v. Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-963
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA24-963

Filed 18 June 2025

Brunswick County, Nos. 21CRS051816-090, 21CRS051817-090, 21CRS051818-090 21CRS051819-090

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

JOSE LUIS ROMAN MARTINEZ, Defendant.

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 31 October 2023 by Judge Joshua

W. Willey Jr. in Brunswick County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

22 May 2025.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Sarah Nicole Tackett, for the State.

Christopher J. Heaney, for defendant-appellant.

FLOOD, Judge.

Defendant Jose Luis Roman Martinez appeals from the trial court’s judgments

finding him guilty of three counts of sexual act by a substitute parent or custodian,

four counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, and three counts of statutory

sexual offense with a child by an adult. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court STATE V. MARTINEZ

Opinion of the Court

erred in preventing Defendant from questioning a key witness about a prior

inconsistent statement, and such error was prejudicial to Defendant’s case. Upon

review, we conclude Defendant has failed to demonstrate the witness’ prior statement

was inconsistent, and as such, find no error on part of the trial court.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In early 2016, Carla Silva reconnected with and began to date Defendant, who,

like Carla, is from Mexico, and is a childhood friend of hers. In April 2016, Carla and

her two young daughters moved in with Defendant, and lived with him in his trailer

in Southport, North Carolina. The elder daughter, Sarah,1 was around nine years of

age at the time she moved in with Defendant. During Carla and her daughters’

shared residency with Defendant, Defendant would take care of Sarah and her sister

while Carla was at work or running errands. In or around September 2016, Carla

and her daughters moved with Defendant to a house in South Carolina, but stayed

there for only one night before Carla got into an argument with Defendant, and they

broke up. Carla and her daughters left Defendant’s home, and Sarah neither saw nor

spoke to Defendant again, prior to the trial underlying this appeal.

In late 2020 or early 2021, Sarah confided in her minor friend, Amy, that

Defendant had touched her inappropriately during the time that she lived with him.

While Sarah did not provide any details to Amy, Sarah made her promise not to tell

1 Pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of all the minor children, pursuant to N.C.R.

App. P. 42(b).

-2- STATE V. MARTINEZ

anyone of this disclosure, and Amy kept that promise. A few weeks after her

disclosure to Amy, Sarah called another minor friend, Mallory, on FaceTime, and told

Mallory what Defendant had done to her. To Mallory, Sarah detailed that Defendant

“had given her oral sex” while Carla was not at home, and that while she felt guilty

for not sooner disclosing the abuse, it was “holding so much weight on her that she

felt like she needed to say something.” After her conversation with Sarah, Mallory

informed her own mother of Sarah’s disclosure.

Soon after speaking with Mallory, Sarah came to and told Carla that

Defendant had touched and fondled her while they lived together. On 5 February

2021, Carla dialed 9-1-1, and Sarah informed the police that her “mom’s boyfriend

did something to [her] a few years ago.” Detective Jeffry Severino of the Brunswick

County Sherriff’s Office was assigned as lead detective of the case, and began his

investigation by arranging for Sarah to be assessed by medical professionals at the

Carousel Center in Wilmington, North Carolina—a child advocacy center that

specializes in interviewing and assessing children who may have been victims of child

abuse or neglect.

On 22 February 2021, when Sarah was fourteen, she went to the Carousel

Center for a recorded forensic interview conducted by Julie Ozier, and a medical

examination conducted by Mary Beth Koehler. Following the interview and

examination, Detective Severino watched the recording of the forensic interview.

Detective Severino thereafter interviewed Sarah, wherein Sarah described to

-3- STATE V. MARTINEZ

Detective Severino the three times Defendant had sexually assaulted her, and

provided Detective Severino with hand-drawn diagrams depicting the layout of

Defendant’s house, to demonstrate where each of these three assaults had occurred.

During his investigation, Detective Severino interviewed several other

individuals to corroborate Sarah’s account, including: Defendant’s previous landlord,

who confirmed that Sarah and her family had been living with Defendant in his

Southport residence from April to August 2016; Carla, who told him that, shortly

after she started working at a hotel, Sarah stopped calling Defendant “dad”; and

Mallory, who corroborated that Sarah told her Defendant had “masturbated her

vagina” and “performed oral sex on her,” that it happened while Carla was not home,

and that Sarah would get away by going to a friend’s house. Detective Severino also

interviewed Defendant, who denied Sarah’s allegations, and claimed that Carla was

a jealous woman with a drinking problem, who treated Sarah “badly” and would put

makeup on Sarah “like a grown woman[.]”

On 7 May 2021, Defendant was arrested, and on 7 June 2021, a grand jury

issued a bill of indictment charging Defendant with: four counts of sexual act by a

substitute parent/custodian, four counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, and

four counts of statutory sexual offense with a child by an adult. On 25 October 2023,

this matter came on for trial, and during evidence, the State presented witness

testimonies from Sarah, Carla, Amy, Mallory, Mallory’s mother, Detective Severino,

Ozier, and Koehler.

-4- STATE V. MARTINEZ

Sarah testified as to the three incidents where Defendant sexually assaulted

her. Regarding the first incident, Sarah testified that, while Carla was at work,

Sarah and her sister had been watching television on the couch in the living room.

Defendant was sitting on the floor, watching television with them, when he suddenly

started “playing around” by tickling Sarah. Defendant then “started putting his

hands under [her] shorts” and began touching Sarah’s vagina with his fingers.

Regarding the second incident, Sarah testified that Carla was not at home, and

Defendant took Sarah into his bedroom, leaving her sister in the living room.

Defendant again started tickling Sarah, who was lying on the bed; pulled her to the

edge of the bed; took off her shorts and underwear; and began to lick and put his

tongue inside of her vagina. Regarding the third incident, Sarah testified that Carla

was again not at home, and Defendant brought her into his bedroom. As before,

Defendant tickled Sarah as she was lying on his bed, and pulled down her shorts and

underwear. Defendant then touched Sarah’s vagina with his hand; inserted his

fingers inside of her vagina, causing pain for Sarah; and put his mouth on her vagina.

After this assault, Sarah left Defendant’s house and went to a friend’s house.

Following direct examination of Sarah, defense counsel requested an in camera

hearing regarding a desired cross-examination of Sarah, and the trial court granted

this request. Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel expressed his desire

to question Sarah about a prior, allegedly inconsistent statement made in a 2020

forensic interview regarding sexual contact by her friend’s father, wherein the

-5- STATE V. MARTINEZ

interviewer asked her whether “anyone [has] done anything like this to you[,]” and

Sarah responded, “no.” The State objected to defense counsel’s proposed line of

questions, and defense counsel then conducted a voire dire examination of Sarah,

which resulted in the following colloquy:

Q. [Sarah], when you were asked [during the 2020 forensic interview], “Has anyone done anything like this to you?” what did you understand that to mean?

A. I understand [sic] what had happened to me in that current situation. If that had ever happened to me before. I said no, because - -

Q. What do you mean by “that”?

A. My friend’s dad touching my boob.

The trial court thereafter sustained the State’s objection, excluding introduction of

this testimony, and finding any probative value of defense counsel’s proposed cross-

examination to be substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice and

confusion of the issues.

Carla next testified, stating that she had noticed a change in Sarah and

Defendant’s relationship in the early summer of 2016, when Sarah had started

distancing herself from Defendant, telling Carla that Defendant “was no longer her

dad[,]” and began “behaving like she was more distracted and just different.”

Detective Severino testified as to his full investigation, and that, during his

interview with Sarah, she told him—regarding one of the incidents in the bedroom—

Defendant had pulled down her shorts and underwear, and inserted his fingers into

-6- STATE V. MARTINEZ

her vagina; Defendant then held her down with his legs and performed oral sex on

her; and when Defendant was finished, Sarah left and went to a friend’s house.

Detective Severino also testified that Sarah had told him: regarding the other

incident in Defendant’s bedroom, Defendant had “inserted his fingers into her

vagina”; and regarding the incident on the couch in the living room, Defendant

“started tickling her in the armpits, and then started tickling her upper shorts, and

ended up touching her vagina” with his hand.

Ozier testified as an expert witness, and stated that, during the recorded

forensic interview—wherein Sarah described to Ozier the three incidents of alleged

assault, and which was played for the jury—she had asked open-ended questions of

Sarah. Ozier testified that, in her experience and based on research in her field,

“[m]ost children do not tell [of] a sexual abuse immediately[,]” and “delayed

disclosures are the norm.” Ozier explained that such a victim may delay disclosure

anywhere from a couple weeks until even adulthood, and when the victim finally does

disclose, it is often to a peer before a parent or caregiver.

Koehler also testified as an expert witness, and provided that, during the

medical examination, Sarah had disclosed that Defendant “had hurt her[,]” he “would

touch her vaginal area with his fingers[,]” and “his mouth touched . . . her vaginal

area.” Koehler also testified that the results of Sarah’s anogenital exam were

“normal” and there were no signs of injury, but that this is consistent with what she

observes in 95% of child sexual abuse cases, and that in cases of delayed disclosure

-7- STATE V. MARTINEZ

involving digital penetration of and oral contact with the vagina, it is expected that

there would be no injuries, because the vaginal tissue “heals very quickly.”

At the close of the State’s evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss all charges,

which the trial court denied. Defendant put on no evidence, and at the close of all

evidence, renewed his motion to dismiss. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion

as to one count of statutory sex offense with a child by an adult, and one count of

sexual act by a substitute parent/custodian, but denied the motion as to the

remaining ten charges.

On 31 October 2023, the jury found Defendant guilty of the remaining ten

charges, and that same day, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior Level I to

a consolidated term of 300 to 420 months’ imprisonment. The trial court also ordered

Defendant have no contact with the victim, and to register as a sex offender for a

period of thirty years upon release from prison. Defendant timely appealed.

II. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction to review this appeal from a final judgment of a

superior court, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b)(1) (2023).

III. Analysis

Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in preventing Defendant

from questioning Sarah about a prior inconsistent statement made during the 2020

forensic interview, and that such error was prejudicial to Defendant’s case. We

disagree.

-8- STATE V. MARTINEZ

This Court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to exclude

evidence by limiting the scope of cross-examination, which requires “a showing that

the ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned

decision.” State v. West, 255 N.C. App. 162, 165 (2017) (citation omitted); see also

State v. Edmonds, 212 N.C. App. 575, 579 (2011) (providing that, upon review of a

trial court’s decision to limit the scope of cross-examination, this Court defers to “the

sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed absent

a showing of abuse of discretion” (citation omitted)). “Even where this Court finds

the trial court’s evidentiary decision was in error, however, evidentiary error does not

necessitate a new trial unless the erroneous admission was prejudicial.” State v. Teel,

909 S.E.2d 541, 549 (N.C. Ct. App. 2024) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). “A defendant is prejudiced by evidentiary error when there is a reasonable

possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result

would have been reached” by the jury. State v. Wilkerson, 363 N.C. 382, 415 (2009)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Under Rule 412 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence—commonly known as

the “Rape Shield Statute”—evidence regarding the victim’s past sexual activity is

“irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution” unless it falls under any of four delineated

exceptions. N.C.R. Evid. 412(b). As our Supreme Court has provided, however, the

Rape Shield Statute “is nothing more [] than a codification of this jurisdiction’s rule

of relevance as that rule specifically applies to the past sexual behavior of victims[,]”

-9- STATE V. MARTINEZ

and as such, does not “exclude evidence generally considered relevant in trials of

other crimes.” State v. Fortney, 301 N.C. 31, 37, 42 (1980). Such relevant evidence

includes a victim’s prior inconsistent statements, that may be introduced to impeach

her credibility as a witness. See West, 255 N.C. App. at 166.

Regarding proper introduction of such evidence, this Court has provided that

“[e]vidence of prior sexual conduct is relevant when it affects an issue that is common

to all trials, e.g., a witness’[] inconsistent statement about . . . her sexual history.” Id.

at 166 (citation omitted). “The question of whether a prior statement is an

inconsistent statement is a matter to be determined by the trial court after hearing

evidence either party may offer, outside the presence of the jury.” State v. Ginyard,

122 N.C. App. 25, 34 (1996); see also State v. Morrison, 84 N.C. App. 41, 46 (1987)

(concluding the trial court properly excluded a prior, allegedly inconsistent statement

where the defendant “failed to show that the testimony of the . . . witness[] was

inconsistent”).

Here, when considering whether to admit Sarah’s cross-examination-elicited

testimony regarding statements made during the 2020 forensic interview, the trial

court properly conducted an in camera hearing on the matter. See Ginyard, 122 N.C.

App. at 34. The trial court heard arguments from counsel, and defense counsel

conducted a voire dire examination of Sarah, asking her what she had understood the

2020 forensic interviewer’s question of whether “anyone [has] done anything like this

to [her]”—to which she had answered, “no”—to mean. Sarah responded to defense

- 10 - STATE V. MARTINEZ

counsel’s inquiry, stating that she had understood the interviewer’s question to

concern her “friend’s dad touching [her] boob.”

Defendant contends that Sarah’s answer to the 2020 forensic interviewer’s

question was a prior inconsistent statement of Sarah’s sexual history that, if

considered by the jury, would have yielded a reasonable possibility of a different

outcome of Defendant’s trial. See Wilkerson, 363 N.C. at 415. We are unpersuaded

by Defendant’s contention. As set forth above, Sarah clarified during her voire dire

testimony that she had understood the 2020 forensic interviewer’s question to

concern an adult male touching her breast. It cannot be said that Sarah’s answer of

“no” to the interviewer’s question amounts to a statement inconsistent with her

allegations of abuse by Defendant, as a review of the Record reveals no evidence—or

accusation thereof—that Defendant touched or otherwise violated Sarah’s breast.

Rather, in her testimony before the jury, Sarah detailed three separate incidents

where Defendant targeted and violated her vaginal area, and her testimonial

accounts of these incidents were fully consistent with, and corroborated by, Detective

Severino’s and Ozier’s testimonies, as well as the recorded 2021 forensic interview

played for the jury.

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that Sarah’s answer to the 2020 forensic

interviewer’s question constitutes a prior inconsistent statement regarding her

sexual history, and as such, her statement could not be properly used to impeach

Sarah’s credibility as a witness. See West, 255 N.C. App. at 166. Accordingly, we

- 11 - STATE V. MARTINEZ

conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding introduction of this

evidence, and therefore find no error. See id. at 165; see also Morrison, 84 N.C. App.

at 46; N.C.R. Evid. 412(b).

IV. Conclusion

Upon review, we conclude Defendant has failed to demonstrate a key witness’

prior statement made during the 2020 forensic interview was inconsistent with her

allegations of abuse by Defendant. The trial court did therefore not abuse its

discretion in excluding the introduction of the key witness’ prior statement, and we

find no error.

NO ERROR.

Judges STADING and MURRY concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

- 12 -