Coronado v. State

EDGAR CORONADO v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1117-2018

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

April 19, 2022

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No CT16-0202X

Kehoe Nazarian, Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

NAZARIAN, J.

Edgar Coronado was convicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County of three sexual offenses-sexual offense in the third degree, sexual offense in the fourth degree, and sexual abuse of a minor-that he committed against his stepdaughter. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his convictions. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Between 2009 and 2015, Mr. Coronado lived with his ex-wife and her four children, including the victim in this case, R.^[1] According to R, the entire family all slept in the same room.^[2] Mr. Coronado and Ms. Campos slept in one bed and R slept with her younger brother, G, on a bunk bed. The two younger children slept in their own bed. R testified that on September 11, 2015, Mr. Coronado touched her skin with his hands while they were in the bedroom. At first, R testified that she could not remember exactly what happened but recalled that Mr. Coronado "did something weird that [she] didn't like in bed" when she was six or seven years old. R was wearing clothes at the time of the incident, but Mr. Coronado was naked. During the incident, G was in the bedroom with R and Mr. Coronado while R's mother was in the kitchen making food for Mr. Coronado. G testified that he was in his bed when he saw Mr. Coronado touch R on her private part, which he called her "[w]iener." G recalled that Mr. Coronado and R were in separate beds, but Mr. Coronado scooted over to R and then touched her. G stated that R was wearing clothes. He said that Mr. Coronado's hands went under R's clothes and R told him to stop.

R later told her maternal grandmother about the incident. Her grandmother testified that on the day after the incident, she picked up R from the family home and helped R get ready for school. R's grandmother noticed that R looked sad, and when she asked R about it, R said "'Edgar touched me.'" R pointed to her vagina and told her grandmother that "'[h]e touched me here[.]'" R's grandfather also disclosed that when he was taking her to school that same morning, R told him "that Mr. Coronado got into the bed in which she was sleeping and he was like wanting to introduce this finger [] in the vagina." R reported the incident to the school and R's grandparents were called to the school. That day, R's grandfather also notified the police. Detective Jenifer Reio then interviewed R. R told Detective Reio that Mr. Coronado touched her and it hurt. R never received a sexual assault examination.

At trial, the State asked R to detail where Mr. Coronado touched her by having her mark up an anatomical drawing of a girl. When the State asked R for the name of the body part she circled, R responded "I forgot," but the drawing depicts a circle covering the lower abdomen and upper thigh area.

At the close of the State's case, defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal on all counts, arguing that the State had not met its burden on the elements necessary to prove sexual offense in the third degree, sexual offense in the fourth degree, and sexual abuse of a minor:

[THE COURT]: Any motions on the four counts?

[COUNSEL FOR MR. CORONADO]: Yes, Your Honor. With regard to all counts, I would suggest to the Court that on the issue of fourth degree sex offense and third degree sex offense and with the child abuse of a minor, that the only testimony we have as to age is approximately. That there is no actual age that is being introduced into evidence, only an approximate age.

I do not think that even in the generous light that the Court has to look would meet the elements of a fourth degree sex offense, third degree sex offense and age-based fourth degree sex offense, third degree sex offense and because there is no predicates, that would not meet the elements of sexual abuse of a minor.

Defense counsel argued specifically that none of the elements of sexual offense in the third degree had been met:

[COUNSEL FOR MR. CORONADO]: I would also indicate that at least with regard to the third degree sex offense, separate and apart from that, for them to prove that particular offense, if they are going on anything more than an age-based-

[THE COURT]: Anything more than that?

[COUNSEL FOR MR. CORONADO]: An age-based variety of that, there has been absolutely no testimony concerning-

[THE COURT]: We will get into that in jury instructions but if there is any portion of the offense in the elements-are you arguing that none of the elements of third degree exist?

[COUNSEL FOR MR. CORONADO]: I am arguing that none of the elements of third degree sex offense have been proven in this case, Your Honor, yes I am.

The court denied Mr. Coronado's motion for judgment of acquittal.

At the conclusion of the presentation of all the evidence, defense counsel renewed their motion for judgment of acquittal. In addition to reasserting that the elements for sexual offense in the third degree had not been met, counsel argued that the State had failed to prove the elements to sustain a conviction for sexual offense in the fourth degree:

[COUNSEL FOR MR. CORONADO]: Your Honor, if I could. We would renew our motion. Same grounds as before, obviously, the standards are different and I would with particularization as to the fourth degree sexual offense, again, it requires an act that is-I do not have the instruction in front of me.

[THE COURT]: The sexual arousal and gratification.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. CORONADO]: And it requires an act that is against the will and without the consent and it requires both. . . .

The only testimony we have is that there was a touching, an objection and then it stopped. So that in addition to the other arguments that I have already made, we would move for judgment of acquittal with regard to all counts but specifically with regard to the fourth degree sexual offense.

The court denied defense counsel's renewal motion "as to each and every count."

On April 24, 2018, the jury convicted Mr. Coronado of sexual offense in the third degree, sexual offense in the fourth degree, and sexual abuse of a minor. He was acquitted of second-degree assault. We supply additional facts as necessary below.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Coronado argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of sexual offense in the third degree, sexual offense in the fourth degree, and sexual abuse of a minor. He focuses primarily on what he characterizes as the lack of evidence to establish sexual contact, an element necessary to sustain the convictions of sexual offense in the third and fourth degree.^[3] He argues as well that if there is insufficient evidence to convict him of sexual offense in the third and fourth degree, he necessarily cannot be convicted of sexual abuse of a minor because to be convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, a defendant must first be convicted of a sexual offense.^[4] Md. Code (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol.), § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article ("CR").

Sexual contact, an element of both sexual offense in the third and fourth degree, is "an intentional touching of the victim's or actor's genital, anal, or other intimate area for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party." CR § 3-301(e)(1). Mr. Coronado argues that the State failed to prove that he touched R for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. The State responds that Mr. Coronado's argument is not preserved for appellate review because he failed to argue the sexual contact element specifically at trial. The State argues further that even if we find Mr. Coronado's sufficiency argument preserved, the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions.

A. Mr. Coronado's Argument Is Preserved For Appellate Review.

Before addressing the merits, we must first address if Mr. Coronado's argument is preserved for appellate review, which requires us to examine the arguments he made in his motions for judgment of acquittal. Under Maryland Rule 4-324(a), "[a] defendant may move for judgment of acquittal on one or more counts . . . at the close of the evidence offered by the State and, in a jury trial, at the close of all the evidence." If the initial motion is denied, the motion for acquittal must be renewed at the close of all evidence, or the sufficiency of evidence may not be reviewed on appeal. Dziekonski v. State, 127 Md.App. 191, 207-08 (1999).

"[A] criminal defendant who moves for judgment of acquittal must state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted and is not entitled to appellate review of reasons stated for the first time on appeal." Peters v. State, 224 Md.App. 306, 353 (2015) (cleaned up). If a defendant states merely that there is insufficient evidence supporting a conviction, but fails to specify the deficiency, the sufficiency argument is not preserved for appellate review. Md. Rule 4-324(a); Mulley v. State, 228 Md.App. 364, 387-88 (2016). But if the deficiency is specified and the claim is preserved, we assess the sufficiency of evidence. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, we evaluate "whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Roes v. State 236 Md.App. 569, 582 (2018) (cleaned up).

The State contends that Mr. Coronado did not argue in his motions "that there was insufficient evidence 'to establish sexual contact-i.e., a touching of the genital area with the intent to do so for sexual arousal or gratification.'" The...