If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED April 23, 2020 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 346101 Kent Circuit Court BALDOMERO RUBIO-MARTINEZ, LC No. 17-010155-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: MARKEY, P.J., and JANSEN and BOONSTRA, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals by right his jury-trial convictions of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(2)(b), and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750c(2)(b). The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of 25 to 40 years for his two CSC-I convictions and 3 to 15 years for his two CSC-II convictions. We affirm. I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant was accused of sexually abusing his girlfriend’s daughter, JVE, and JVE’s cousin, PG. JVE reported, and later testified, that defendant touched her sexually on two occasions when she was seven years old, both times digitally penetrating her vagina as well as touching her stomach and legs under her clothes. PG reported, and later testified, that when she was eleven years old, while spending the night at JVE’s house, defendant touched her chest and legs above the clothes and pressed his genital area against her in one incident and touched her buttocks and legs above her clothes in another incident. During trial, defense counsel questioned both children’s mothers concerning their status as undocumented immigrants, and about whether they were using these sexual assault allegations to obtain a “U-Visa.” Defense counsel called a Michigan immigration attorney to testify regarding U-Visas, which are visas issued under the federal Violence Against Women Act that provide special relief to “allow[] people [who] have been victims of certain types of crime . . . to stay in the United States.” They also allow both direct and indirect victims a path to gain legal status in -1- the United States. Defendant’s theory of the case was that these assaults had been fabricated in order to obtain such visas. The prosecution called Gretchen Knight-Dennis of the Children’s Advocacy Center as a rebuttal witness to testify about when the minor children’s mothers found out about U-Visas. The following colloquy took place between the prosecution and Knight-Dennis: The Prosecution: So getting exactly to my point is did you ever have a conversation with either family about a U-Visa? Knight-Dennis: Yes, I did. The Prosecution: And can you please tell the jury when that conversation first takes place, the first time it was ever mentioned? Knight-Dennis: The first time it was ever mentioned was in one of our sessions between November 1st and November 29th. The Prosecution: It would have been in November of 2017? Knight-Dennis: Correct. The Prosecution: Is that a topic that was brought up by yourself or by someone else? Knight-Dennis: By myself. The Prosecution: Can you please explain to the jury why you did that? Knight-Dennis: Yes. From the very beginning, the family had expressed or had reported that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals