Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 14157)

FELONY CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 14157) (Gilbert Police Department DR No. 2014-XXXXXXXX): At the time these allegations were made, Mr. D was a 37-year old male. Mr. D was accused of molesting the 11-year old daughter of his girlfriend. Mr. D had met and become romantically involved with a woman who had two young children: one age 11, the other age 7. Mr. D began living with the woman and helping provide care for her young children when he was not working. Unfortunately, the family dynamic was somewhat dysfunctional. The mother had a severe alcohol addiction and was frequently impaired to the point of being passed out. The mother was divorced from the children’s father and there had been multiple prior issues within the family including allegations of the mother being unfit to care for the children due to her substance abuse issues. Two DCS caseworkers were conducting a welfare check related to a prior allegation against the mother. During that welfare check they spoke with both of the children. At that time the 11-year old daughter stated that Mr. D had been lying in bed with her and had made her touch his penis with her hand. She further stated that when she withdrew her hand, he grabbed her hand and made her put it back on his genitals. The DCS caseworkers immediately stopped the interview and contacted the Gilbert Police Department regarding Child Molestation, a Dangerous Crime Against Children per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1410. The children were also immediately removed from the home and placed with their biological father. Mr. D learned of the allegations and immediately contacted us.

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge team staffed the case immediately and began taking action. We first reached out to the assigned Detective and advised her that we were representing Mr. D. We followed up that contact with a written Invocation of Rights for our client. We also immediately advised the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that we represented Mr. D and that, should a grand jury be impaneled, Mr. D wanted to inform the grand jury that he would be available and testify to the grand jury if they desired to hear from him. We also arranged for a polygraph examination of our client and drafted proposed questions for that polygraph examination. Our polygraph examination focused on whether or not Mr. D had ever touched the child or had the child touch him in any sexual manner. We moved very quickly and got Mr. D in for a polygraph immediately. Mr. D’s polygraph showed that no deception was indicated and he denied having any sexual contact with the child whatsoever. We also personally met with the child’s mother, who advised us that, unfortunately the child had a prior history of false sexual allegations against another one of her boyfriends. It was sadly apparent that this little 11-year old girl was resorting to false sexual allegations to try to escape a highly dysfunctional home life with an alcoholic mother.

The investigating Detective conducted a forensic interview of little girl. The investigating Detective was very forthcoming with us in our contact regarding the investigation. The Detective advised us that the little girl had confirmed that there was sexual contact between herself and Mr. D and the Detective believed the statement to be credible. Due to the immediate invocation of Mr. D’s rights, the Detective knew that she was not able to have contact with Mr. D. The Detective also was aware that with the prior false allegation, as well as the very dysfunctional home life, that there was not sufficient information to move forward with charges at that time, even though she clearly wanted to move forward with charges.

The case was subsequently cleared as “DNR inactive, pending further information.”

Call Now Button