Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alvarez Saucedo v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

October 29, 2019



          Louis Kirk Nagy (The Law Office of Louis K. Nagy, PLC, on briefs), for appellant.

          Eugene Murphy, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Rachel L. Yates, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

          Present: Judges O'Brien, AtLee and Athey Argued at Lexington, Virginia.



         A jury convicted Carlos Artur Alvarez Saucedo ("appellant") of sodomizing a child under the age of thirteen, in violation of Code § 18.2-67.1(A)(1). The court imposed the jury sentence, eleven years of incarceration, with an additional forty years suspended, pursuant to Code § 18.2-67.1(B)(2). Appellant contends that the court erred in denying a pretrial motion to suppress statements he made to a detective. He also asserts that the court erred by admitting the complaining witness' prior statements at trial and denying his motion to set aside the verdict based on insufficient evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm appellant's conviction.


         G.G., the complaining witness, is appellant's stepdaughter. In 2013, when G.G. was in first grade, she told a school counselor that appellant had touched her vagina. However, when a social worker and police officer interviewed the child, she recanted her statement.

         In 2017, when she was ten years old, G.G. attended a presentation at her elementary school about inappropriate touching. Afterwards, G.G. told Carlita Sheldon, a Child Protective Services employee, that when she was four or five years old, appellant laid on the bed where she was sleeping and licked her vagina. G.G. also said that appellant was drunk at the time. Sheldon obtained permission from G.G.'s mother to take G.G to the Collins Child Advocacy Center for a forensic interview. Rhoda Miller, a Collins Center employee, conducted the interview, which was videotaped.

         On April 19, 2017, Detective Mike Spiggle of the Harrisonburg Police Department interviewed appellant at the police station. Appellant was not in custody. Carlita Sheldon, who is fluent in Spanish, interpreted for appellant during the interview. Appellant denied the allegations and left.

         Appellant agreed to return to the station on April 24, 2017 for a polygraph examination. Upon appellant's arrival, Detective Spiggle and another interpreter, Ramon Ochoa, escorted appellant to the polygraph suite, demonstrated that the door was unlocked, and assured appellant that he was free to leave at any time. Appellant was not handcuffed, and he sat in the chair closest to the door. Detective Spiggle and Ochoa were the only other people in the room.

         Detective Spiggle explained that he was investigating appellant for sodomizing a child. He remarked that if appellant touched G.G.'s vagina with his tongue, he "needed to get up and walk out of the room now." Appellant continued to speak with the detective and eventually stated that he "had been drinking that night and he mistook or . . . confused [G.G.] for his wife." When asked if he recalled touching G.G.'s vagina with his tongue, appellant replied, "[P]robably, yes," and added, "I'm sure myself I will never do that again." Detective Spiggle left the room, and appellant wrote a statement.

         After reviewing the statement with a prosecutor, Detective Spiggle requested more details from appellant. Appellant wrote a second statement in which he admitted that he touched G.G. with his hands and "maybe . . . touch[ed] her with [his] tongue." Detective Spiggle placed appellant under arrest at that time.

         Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress his oral and written statements to Detective Spiggle. Although appellant acknowledged that he was not in custody during his initial interview on April 19, 2017, he contended that on April 24, 2017, when Detective Spiggle told him that if he touched G.G. with his tongue he should "get up and walk out," the interview became custodial and the police were required to advise him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The court viewed the videotaped interview from April 24, 2017, and observed that "during the entire interview . . . [appellant] appeared to be sitting in a relaxed manner." It found, after considering all the circumstances, that appellant was not in custody and denied the suppression motion.

         Pursuant to Code § 19.2-268.3, the Commonwealth filed a pretrial motion to admit three of G.G.'s prior statements: the 2013 report to a school counselor, the 2017 disclosure to Carlita Sheldon, and the 2017 forensic interview with Rhoda Miller at the Collins Center. Appellant agreed that the statements could be admissible but argued that G.G. would have to testify first. The court found that the "totality of the circumstances surrounding each of the three statements provided sufficient indicia of reliability so as to render them inherently trustworthy" and therefore they were admissible under the hearsay exception contained in Code § 19.2-268.3.

         At trial, G.G. testified that when she was five years old, she woke one night to find appellant lying on her bed. She stated that appellant pulled her pants down and touched her vagina with his tongue and hands for several seconds. On cross-examination, G.G. acknowledged that she did not know the meaning of "labia majora" or "vulva," but she explained that when she stated appellant had put his tongue on her vagina, she meant her "private area."

         G.G. testified that she initially reported the abuse when she was in first grade and told another adult when she was in fourth grade. She stated that she did not remember the Collins Center interview but recalled "going to a place where [she] sat in a blue chair to talk with a video." Miller identified the videotaped interview at trial, and over objection, the Commonwealth played the video for the jury. In the interview, G.G. described the offense, gestured to a picture of a vagina on the table, and said that during the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.