People v. Suastegui-Ramirez

1

2024 IL App (1st) 230299-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NARCISO SUASTEGUI-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-23-0299

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

November 26, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 19 CR 17059 Honorable Joseph M. Cataldo, Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McBride and Howse concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

VAN TINE PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: We affirm defendant's convictions for predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse over his contentions that (1) the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial, (2) the trial court should not have admitted into evidence a transcript of defendant's statement to police, translated into English without a jury instruction as to that transcript, (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (4) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

¶ 2 A jury found defendant Narciso Suastegui-Ramirez guilty of predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to 14 years in prison. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial, (2) the trial court should not have admitted a transcript of defendant's statement to police, translated from Spanish to English without a jury instruction as to that transcript, (3) the State failed to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and (4) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The State charged defendant with one count of predatory criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2014)) and four counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (id. § 11-1.60(c)(1)(i)). The charges arose from defendant's sexual abuse of his niece, K.B., between June 20, 2014, and June 19, 2018, when K.B. was under 13 years of age.

¶ 5 This case was tried twice. The first trial resulted in a mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a verdict. This appeal concerns the second trial.

¶ 6 A. Section 115-10 Motion to Admit K.B.'s Statements

¶ 7 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion pursuant to section 115-10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 115-10 (West 2014)) to admit K.B.'s statements reporting defendant's sexual abuse to two of her friends, A.L. and S.J, and to forensic interviewer Karielis Jusino.^[1] Only K.B.'s statement to A.L. is at issue in this appeal.^[2]

¶ 8 At a hearing on the State's motion, A.L. testified that K.B. was his friend and seventh grade classmate. During a video call when K.B. was 11 years old and in sixth grade, she told A.L. that defendant raped her at her home when she was 8 or 9 years old. K.B. appeared sad and scared during this call and said she had not told anyone else. Two to three weeks after that conversation, A.L. and K.B. were at a movie theater with another friend when K.B. described defendant removing her clothes and touching her when they were in a room together. During that incident, a nephew knocked on the door and defendant said the nephew could not enter because he and K.B. "were working on something."

¶ 9 The trial court granted the State's motion to admit K.B.'s statements. The court reasoned that K.B.'s outcry to A.L. was reliable because it was spontaneous, K.B. had no reason to lie, and her description of the sex acts in question was consistent with her age.

¶ 10 B. Motion to Suppress Defendant's Statement

¶ 11 Also prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress his statement to Prospect Heights police. Defendant alleged that police did not provide Miranda warnings and threatened to arrest his wife and daughter if he did not cooperate.

¶ 12 At a hearing on the motion, Prospect Heights sergeant Jesus Duron testified that defendant was arrested on November 15, 2019, and arrived at the Prospect Heights police station at approximately 6 p.m. that evening. Duron and detective sergeant Bill Caponigro interviewed defendant at approximately 9:20 a.m. the following day. During the interview, Caponigro asked questions and Duron translated between Caponigro's English questions and defendant's Spanish responses. Caponigro read Miranda warnings while Duron and defendant reviewed a Spanish-language Miranda form, which defendant initialed and signed. In court, Duron identified the Miranda form defendant signed, and the State moved it into evidence. The Miranda form is included in the record on appeal. It is a single page titled "Constitutional Rights Waiver SPANISH" and is otherwise entirely in Spanish. The handwritten initials "NS" appear next to four sentences. The signatures of defendant, Caponigro, and Duron appear at the bottom of the form. Duron denied that he or Caponigro threatened to arrest defendant's wife or daughter.

¶ 13 Duron also identified a video recording of defendant's interview, which the State moved into evidence. Relevant here, the video depicts defendant, Duron, and Caponigro in a small room with three chairs and a table. Defendant is not handcuffed and does not appear to be in any distress. Caponigro speaks in English and defendant speaks in Spanish; Duron translates. Caponigro reads Miranda warnings in English while Duron and defendant follow along on a form. Duron reads the Miranda warnings aloud in Spanish as well. Defendant verbally confirms that he understands his Miranda rights, initials and signs the form, and agrees to speak with the officers. Defendant states he has been treated well at the police station, has been given food and water, and is not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. We summarize the substance of defendant's statement below because the State introduced it at trial.

¶ 14 Defendant testified that Prospect Heights police arrested him at his work on November 15, 2019, and transported him to a police station. In a hallway outside an interview room, Duron said he would arrest defendant's wife and daughter if they "bother[ed] the girl" or if defendant refused to give a statement. As a result, defendant "felt pressure" to give a statement to police. Police read defendant his Miranda rights but defendant "was nervous, and [he] didn't know what was going on." Defendant acknowledged that he signed the Miranda form and that the video recording showed him telling police he understood his Miranda rights, but he testified that he "didn't understand."

¶ 15 Defendant argued that he signed the Miranda waiver form under coercion "due to his lack of English" and Duron's threat to arrest his wife and daughter, and that there was no indication he actually understood his Miranda rights. The State maintained that no Miranda violation occurred because defendant initialed and signed a Spanish-language Miranda form that Duron reviewed with him. The State also highlighted that defendant confirmed that police treated him well, never asked for an attorney, and never invoked his right to remain silent. The State argued that although defendant may have been nervous during his statement to police, there was no evidence he was coerced into making an involuntary statement.

¶ 16 The court denied defendant's motion to suppress. The court reasoned that Duron and Caponigro provided Miranda warnings "one-by-one very slowly." Defendant confirmed his understanding of those warnings verbally and by initialing and signing the Spanish-language Miranda form. Defendant also acknowledged that police treated him well and exhibited no signs of distress during the interview. Therefore, the court concluded, defendant's statement to police was knowing and voluntary.

¶ 17 C. Motion in Limine to Admit Transcript

¶ 18 Prior to the second trial, the State moved in limine to admit a transcript of defendant's statement to police translated into English. The transcript is included in the record on appeal. It was prepared by Marcela Aranda, is 57 pages long, and entirely in English. The first page notes that Duron and Caponigro were present for defendant's statement, but otherwise, the transcript does not indicate which of them is speaking. Rather, it uses "Q" for the officers' questions and "A" for defendant's answers.

¶ 19 Defendant objected to the transcript as "hearsay testimony *** by another individual who is interpreting what they think happened during the interrogation of the defendant." However, defendant did not identify any translation errors in the transcript and stipulated to the translator's qualifications. The State maintained that the transcript was not hearsay; rather, it was "a translation of statements made by a party opponent." The court admitted the transcript but allowed defendant to raise disputes about the accuracy of the translation if he discovered any. He did not.

¶ 20 D. Second Jury Trial

¶ 21 At the second trial, the State proceeded on one count of predatory criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2014)) premised on defendant's penis penetrating K.B.s vagina and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (id. § 11-1.60(c)(1)(i)) premised on defendant kissing K.B. on the mouth.

¶ 22 K.B. testified that she was 14 years old and a freshman in high school at the time of the second trial. From her birth in 2008 to 2018, K.B. lived in an apartment in Prospect Heights. Defendant, her uncle, lived in another apartment in the same building along with his wife and children i.e., K.B.'s aunt and cousins. K.B. visited defendant's apartment often as a young child. When she was in third or...