07/05/2019 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 28, 2018 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAIME F. ZARATE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 286916 Barry A. Steelman, Judge ___________________________________ No. E2017-02553-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________ Defendant, Jaime F. Zarate, was convicted of rape of a child by a Hamilton County jury. The trial court imposed a sentence of thirty years at one-hundred percent to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the prosecutor improperly misstated evidence during closing arguments, that the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s statement to her mother and by admitting the 911 call, and that the trial court improperly sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JJ., joined. D. Marty Lasley, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jaime F. Zarate. Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Assistant Attorney General; M. Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Leslie Longshore and Kevin Brown, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Background Initially, we note that in order to protect the minor victim, she will be referred to solely throughout this opinion as “the victim.” Because the victim was a minor at the time of the offenses, we will refer to the victim’s mother and other members of the victim’s immediate family by their initials in order to further protect the victim’s identity. The victim’s mother, C.E., testified that Defendant was a friend and that she had rented a room from Defendant while her husband was in an immigration detention center. She and her husband moved into another residence after he was released; however, C.E. and her husband remained on friendly terms with Defendant. On October 10, 2012, C.E. called Defendant to see if the victim, who was six years old, could go to see a movie with him. She testified: That day I called him or he called me - - no, I called him because [the victim] wanted to go to the movies, and at that time my husband had just gotten out of jail and we only had one car, so I couldn’t get out to take her places because he worked. I really trusted [Defendant]. We all went out together to skate, to go get ice cream. So my daughter said, “I want to go to the movies.” * * * I said to him, I called him, I said, “Are you going to go out to the movies with the other people that you always go out with?” And he says, he said yes, and I said, “[The victim] wants to go. Can you take her with you?” And he said, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals