RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0863-18T2 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. L.Z., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Argued December 17, 2019 – Decided February 12, 2020 Before Judges Fisher, Gilson and Rose. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 15-07-2243. Jennifer L. Gottschalk argued the cause for appellant (Jennifer L. Gottschalk and Thomas J. DeMarco, attorneys; Jennifer L. Gottschalk, of counsel and on the brief; Thomas J. DeMarco, of counsel). Lila Bagwell Leonard, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Lila Bagwell Leonard, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM A jury convicted defendant of four crimes related to the sexual assault of a minor: first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(2)(c); second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4); third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(a), as a lesser-included offense; and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of twenty-two years, with a period of parole ineligibility, as well as parole supervision for life. He contends that his convictions should be reversed because he was not allowed to cross-examine the child's mother on her immigration status, and he was not accorded a Rule 104 hearing on that issue. He also argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the lesser-included offense of aggravated criminal sexual contact. We reject these arguments and affirm. I. The evidence at trial included testimony by the victim, the victim's mother, and defendant's statement given to law enforcement personnel. That evidence established that defendant had sexual relations with the daughter of his girlfriend when the daughter was between the ages of twelve and fourteen and defendant was approximately between the ages of twenty-two and twenty-four. A-0863-18T2 2 In 2010, at the age of ten, the victim came from El Salvador to live with her mother and sister in New Jersey. Defendant, who was then approximately twenty years old, was the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother. Defendant watched and cared for the victim and her sister when the mother was at work. When the victim was twelve years old, defendant began having sexual intercourse with her. According to the victim, she and defendant had sex multiple times over a period of years. In 2014, when the victim was fourteen years old, she disclosed the relationship to her stepmother, who informed the victim's father. When confronted by the father, defendant acknowledged that he was having sex with his fourteen-year-old daughter and he tried to justify the relationship by claiming that he was in love with her and wanted to be with her. The father contacted the Division ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals