A local man who was convicted of the rape of an eight-year-old boy last year’s motion for a new trial has been denied in DeKalb County Criminal Court.
Jose Reyes, 32, currently serving a 32-year sentence, was convicted in July of last year of raping the boy more than once between November 2012 and March 2013. A jury of six men and six women deliberated only about 30 minutes before returning a guilty verdict.
Reyes was indicted on two counts of rape of a child and one count of criminal exposure to HIV in a 2013 indictment, which alleged that he engaged in unlawful sexual penetration of the eight-year-old boy on two occasions, and that he did so knowing he was infected with HIV, at the Blue Springs Road home of the child's aunt, where Reyes had been renting a room. Prosecutors in the case said Reyes was a trusted friend of the boy and his family prior to this incident.
Judge David Patterson presided over the motion for a new trial, where Assistant District Public Defender Allison Rasbury West argued on the convicted man’s behalf. West cited the following factors in asking for a new trial:
The evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to convict Reyes of the offense of rape of a child.
The trial court erred in denying Reyes's motion to continue the trial date in order to continue to attempt to locate a defense witness
The trial court erred in denying Reyes's motion in limine, requesting that the defendant's written statement be excluded at trial, because it was irrelevant
The trial court erred in denying Reyes's motion in limine, requesting that the use of the Child Advocacy Center dog (allowed in the courtroom during the victim’s testimony to calm him) be prohibited.
The trial court erred in denying Reyes's motion to suppress the written statement in this case.
The trial court erred by sentencing Reyes to 32 years instead of the minimum 25 years.
The trial court improperly overruled the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment in this case based on a superseding indictment changing the date(s) of offense and therefore denying the defendant sufficient notice of which date(s) he should be prepared to defend against.
The trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion in limine to exclude any mention of the defendant having sexual relations or watching pornography in the presence of the alleged victim.
The trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, and
The trial court erred by considering a victim's statement introduced at the sentencing hearing that included references to HIV, herpes, and gonorrhea, when no evidence of such diseases was presented at trial.
Assistant District Attorney Greg Strong argued the following in response to the motion:
Evidence introduced at trial was entirely sufficient to convict the defendant of rape of a child. The jury found the proof sufficient, and the verdict was approved by the court.
The Court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to continue. At the time of the trial, this case had been open for well over one year, and as such the defendant had sufficient time, through the use of an investigator, to locate and subpoena all necessary witnesses.
The defendant's written statement acknowledged his role in the perpetration of this offense, and was wholly relevant in the trial of this matter. The court made no error in this ruling.
The court made no error in allowing the use of the dog belonging to the Child Advocacy Center. The court gave a specific instruction to the jury pertaining to the dog, and was clear with both the defendant and jury that the dog was available for use by any party throughout the trial.
No error was made as related to the defendant's statement.
A sentence of 32 years was appropriate in this case, given the enhancement factors the court found applicable.
The court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss was proper. The state superseded the original indictment to include a date range, rather than a specific date, and this in no way prejudiced the defendant.
The court's denial of the defendant's motion to exclude testimony was proper. The court made findings in the record to support this ruling, and found that the probative value of this testimony outweighed potential unfair prejudice.
The court properly denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. Viewing the proof at trial in a light most favorable to the state, this ruling was proper.
The court made no error in considering statements made at the sentencing of the defendant.
The public defender is expected to file a notice of appeal on Reyes’ behalf.
