FELONY CHILD MOLESTATION and FELONY SEXUAL CONDUCT with a MINOR (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 14029) (Chandler Police Department DR No. 2013-XXXXXX): Mr. D had a 14-year-old stepdaughter who had been causing issues based on behavioral indiscretions. After a specific behavioral issue, Mr. D scolded his stepdaughter. During the scolding he had indicated that she needed to clean her bedroom and clean up her act. He proceeded to discard all of her makeup and other beauty products. Additionally, he removed all clothing out of her closet that he deemed to be inappropriate. During this entire time she was upset and mouthing off to him. At this time her mother, came into the bedroom to assist Mr. D. The mom began scolding her, as well, and she continued to mouth off. After discarding the makeup and clothing and taking away her stereo, Mr. D told her that she was not going to be walking around looking like a “whore” while she is living in their house. At this point she said to Mr. D “well why don’t you talk to mom about you touching me in the middle of the night”. Mr. D told her that she was a sick young girl and needs help because he had never inappropriately touched her. After this encounter, Mr. D’s wife called her mother who picked up the step daughter up from the home.
The next day, Mr. D’s wife reported the allegation to police and told police she did not believe what her daughter was saying. Two days after the report was made, CPS showed up at Mr. D’s home and contacted the girl. The following day, CPS provided a safety plan to the mom with respect to the children and Mr. D. The following day the Detective contacted the mom and conducted an interview of her and scheduled a forensic interview for the girl. A day later police contacted Mr. D regarding Child Molestation per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1410, and Sexual Conduct with a minor per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1405, both Dangerous Crimes Against Children, and interviewed him during which time he made no admissions and denied everything being said by the girl. After this, Mr. D contacted our firm for representation.
Once our services were retained, I met with the Pre-Charge team and we decided to (1) obtain a copy of the Chandler police report, (2) submit a Trebus letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, (3) have Mr. D participate in a polygraph examination, (4) submit a Trebus Bashir letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and (5) make contact with the Detective regarding the status of the investigation and forward any positive polygraphs to him.
Seven days after we were retained, Mr. D completed and passed a polygraph examination. The Detective was notified of the results. Eight days after the passed polygraph test occurred, we submitted a detailed Trebus/Bashir letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the Detective regarding the factual and legal issues the State would have in moving forward with this case.
Eventually, the Detective advised us that he was not moving forward with the case and the case would be “closed.” The final report received from the Detective indicated “[suspect] willingly provided a DNA sample and underwent a polygraph exam, which by all accounts was accurate and indicated his innocence. Finally, a shirt the girl said was used to wipe [suspect] semen off her stomach was tested, but no semen was found. The girl is not wavering in her stance that what she reported is the truth, but with the nonexistence of corroborative evidence, this case is to be closed as ‘suspended’.”
