RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0256-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. O.P.-B., Defendant-Appellant. _________________________ Argued October 18, 2021 – Decided January 6, 2022 Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 16-09- 1503. Carlos Diaz-Cobo argued the cause for appellant. Steven K. Cuttonaro, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Steven K. Cuttonaro, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant O.P.-B.1 appeals from a September 13, 2019 judgment of conviction that the trial court entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b), and one count of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of four years. On appeal, defendant specifically argues the following points: POINT I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ANSWER THE JURY'S QUESTION DURING DELIBERATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE LAW THAT PROVIDES THAT A VICTIM OF A CRIME INVOLVING SEXUAL ABUSE AND THEIR FAMILIES HAVE A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP, DENYING [DEFENDANT] OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WHERE THAT VERY ISSUE WAS THE CRUX OF HIS DEFENSE. [RAISED BELOW]. POINT II THE VERDICT OF GUILTY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. [RAISED BELOW]. POINT III THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE. [RAISED BELOW]. 1 We use initials and pseudonyms in reference to defendant, the victim, and the victim's family members to protect the privacy of the child victim. R. 1:38- 3(c)(9). A-0256-19 2 We affirm because we conclude that the trial court correctly instructed the jury without reference to federal immigration laws as there was no evidence presented at trial regarding any witness's pursuit or knowledge of a federal pathway to citizenship available to crime victims, and there was substantial evidence to support defendant's conviction, including the victim's testimony and DNA evidence. In addition, we find that defendant's argument regarding his sentence is without merit. I. The facts developed at defendant's trial are summarized as follows. Defendant's victim, then fourteen-year-old Amelia, came to the United States from Honduras in 2014 with her father as undocumented immigrants. In 2015, Amelia and her father lived in her cousin's home. At that time, her cousin was married to defendant, who also lived in the same house. Beginning in September 2015, defendant, who was then thirty-five-years old, began to abuse Amelia. According to Amelia, there were four incidents of abuse. The first time that defendant sexually assaulted the child, he told her she could not tell anyone what was happening and that if she did, he would report her …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals