STATE v. GAMEZ MARODIAGA (2026)

Appellant, Defendant Kevin J. Gamez-Marodiaga, seeks review of his convictions and sentences for first degree rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen. Finding no error, we affirm Defendant's convictions and sentences.

Procedural History

Defendant was indicted by a grand jury on November 22, 2023, for first degree rape, a violation of La. R.S. 14:42, and indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen, a violation of La. R.S. 14:81(H)(2). He entered not guilty pleas at his arraignment. Defendant later filed a motion to suppress statements, which the district court denied. On March 26, 2024, this Court denied Defendant's supervisory writ application seeking review of the denial of his motion. State v. Gamez-Mar[o]diaga, 24-0165 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/26/24) (unpub'd).

A four-day jury trial was held in November 2024. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged. Defendant filed motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and for new trial, which the district court denied.

On February 24, 2025, Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence for first degree rape, as well as 15 years imprisonment at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence, for indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Defendant was given credit for time served. The district court further issued a lifetime stay-away order that the Defendant have no contact of any kind with the victim and her family. This timely appeal followed.

Facts

At trial, the State presented testimony from 10 witnesses: the victim's godmother (“Godmother”), the victim's Mother (“Mother”), a school social worker, a forensic interviewer, a pediatrician, three members of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), Defendant's wife and the victim. The defense presented no witnesses.

Initial Disclosure and Reporting to Victim's School

Godmother testified to knowing the victim for two years and to being her godmother. She stated that the victim confided in her that the victim had a much older boyfriend, with whom the victim had sexual contact. Godmother explained that she later shared this information with Mother, who Godmother later brought to a police station to report the incidents.

Godmother recounted that one day when she took the victim out for breakfast, the victim said that she had a much older boyfriend who worked with her father. The victim further shared that their relationship began when her boyfriend, Defendant, who she believed was in his early twenties, made advances on her. The victim further shared that she and Defendant would meet at midnight in his truck by an abandoned house or he would bring her to parks.

Godmother further testified that the victim informed her that the pair “did that thing,” referring to penetrative sexual contact. The victim shared with Godmother that she told Defendant to stop during the act and that it hurt, but he continued. Godmother stated the victim expressed her fear of the Defendant because he had a gun and this made the victim fearful of telling her mother about Defendant. Godmother told the victim she would tell Mother but wanted to give the victim a chance to tell her first. She testified that she called Mother later that day, describing to her what the victim had shared.

On cross-examination, she testified that she did not know Defendant and had never seen him with the victim. She did not see photos or texts of Defendant, nor did she inspect the victim's phone. Godmother clarified that the “sexual acts” between the victim and Defendant referred to penetrative sex which “happened various times.” Lastly, she explained that Mother spoke to the victim a week later about the relationship.

Mother testified that the victim was born in 2011.¹ She explained that Godmother informed her about the victim's sexual contact with Defendant. Mother testified that she waited a few days before discussing the relationship with the victim because she wanted to give her daughter a chance to tell her first.

She stated that the victim's father worked in construction while she worked the nightshift as a housekeeper in 2022, when the victim was 11 years old. She identified Defendant in the courtroom, testifying she knew he was employed by the victim's father. She further explained that she also knew Defendant from attending barbecues together at Defendant's home and the victim's home. She testified that she was not home when the sexual contact between the victim and Defendant occurred, rather the victim was with the victim's father. She testified that the incidents between the victim and Defendant occurred after the victim's father drank and fell asleep.

Mother explained that her daughter's personality changed as a result of the incidents with Defendant. She testified that the victim was “[a] little girl like all the others running [and] playing.” However, now the victim is anxious and dislikes being hugged.

On cross examination, Mother testified she never: witnessed the victim and the defendant together “in a sexual way”; suspected they were engaged in an inappropriate relationship; or saw inappropriate videos or text messages exchanged between the victim and the Defendant on the victim's phone. She did testify, however, that Defendant requested the victim to “delete everything.” Mother explained that neither she nor the victim's father used the victim's cell phone. The victim's father left his phone in the Defendant's work truck at least once; however, Mother did not recall using the victim's phone to reach Defendant to retrieve the phone.²

Mother further testified the victim had nightmares and experienced nervous tics. The victim explained to her that “she [the victim] was afraid to tell us [about the incidents] because [Defendant] had a gun.” The victim started refusing to attend barbecues at Defendant's house because she thought Defendant's wife disliked her. The victim also informed Mother that Defendant's wife called her a “husband thief” and cursed at her in text messages.

Social worker Morgan Fry testified that she was employed at the victim's school, Homer Plessy Community School. Ms. Fry testified that the victim, who was 12 years old at the time, recounted her rape in a meeting with her, Mother and Godmother. The women shared with her that Defendant threatened the victim with violence and showed her calls on the victim's phone that were presumably from the Defendant. Ms. Fry subsequently called 911.³ She testified that Mother and Godmother were not English-speakers, so another teacher translated for Ms. Fry. She further explained that Mother and Godmother visited multiple police stations and were frustrated prior to arriving at the school.

Ms. Fry recounted the victim's allegations as follows:

[The victim] had what she thought of as at the time as an ongoing relationship with [Defendant]. And that she had realized that it wasn't a relationship having a — dating an adult, and that she has come, I think, from talking to friends at school to know that that wasn't okay, and had told her mother and [g]odmother because she wanted help with the situation.

Medical Evaluation and Forensic Interview at CAC

Dr. Neha Mehta was qualified by the district court as an expert in the field of general pediatrics and child abuse pediatrics. Dr. Mehta testified that she practices at and is the Director of the Audrey Hepburn Care Center at the New Orleans Child Advocacy Center (“CAC”) in New Orleans.

She testified that she medically evaluated the victim more than three days after the victim and Defendant had contact.⁴ She explained that this lapse of time made it difficult for her to collect evidence and that she did not find anything abnormal in her evaluation of the victim. She further testified that it is typical that there is an absence of physical findings corroborating allegations in sexual abuse cases. Dr. Mehta stated that it is typical for sexually abused and traumatized children to delay disclosure of their abuse. She further explained that “grooming” is “a term used to describe the process by which somebody who is thinking about sexually abusing a child is approaching that child.”

She testified on cross-examination that her diagnosis in this matter was child sexual abuse for purposes of evaluation of treatment. She further explained that she relied upon the summary of the forensic interviewer in diagnosing the victim. She did not collect evidence as a part of a “rape kit.”

Lisa Moore, who was qualified as an expert in forensic interviews by the district court, testified that she has worked as a forensic interviewer at the CAC for three years, completing over 400 interviews. Ms. Moore described that she is limited to facilitating a “factfinding conversation,” in her position. She conducted the victim's forensic interview, which was introduced into evidence and played for the jury. Ms. Moore testified that the victim, who was 11 years old at the time of the interview, disclosed her sexual contact with the Defendant, at times laughing while doing so. Ms. Moore explained this type of outburst is “very normal.” She explained that the victim further shared that other family members also sexually abused her. Ms. Moore testified this type of abuse is “very common.”

On cross-examination, she testified that she was unaware of other evidence, such as text messages or medical findings, in this matter.

Law Enforcement Investigation

NOPD Det. Tracy Raney testified that she had 20 years of experience in the NOPD's Special Victim's Child Abuse Unit. Det. Rainey explained that majority of child-abuse cases resulted in delayed disclosures. She testified that on May 1, 2023, she began investigating this case after a call for service was received from the victim's school. Det. Raney testified that the victim informed her of a relationship she was involved in with a 23-year old [Defendant], and that the pair had sexual contact inside Defendant's vehicle “on several occasions.”

Det. Rainey further explained that the victim identified Defendant in a photograph (array). The State introduced a photo of the Defendant signed by the victim as well as a photograph of the Defendant at his arrest. During the course of the investigation, the victim was interviewed and underwent a forensic medical exam. Det. Raney described how the Defendant initiated his relationship with the victim:

She [stated] that [Defendant] started up a relationship with her, which she actually [sic] him and she talked to him. They communicated via phone, via text message. She stated that when her father would go out and they would go to work and come home, he would come there and drink with her father. And he would – her father would fall asleep, and she would sneak out of the house and be with [Defendant].

She further recounted that Defendant was arrested after giving a statement to the NOPD. She further identified Defendant in the courtroom.

She testified that as a part of her investigation she collected phone records, the victim's CAC interview, photos of Defendant's truck, photos of Defendant and the Defendant's statement. During her testimony the State introduced: an affidavit and arrest warrant for Defendant; the affidavit for search and seizure warrant for Defendant's vehicle; a picture of Defendant's driver's license and photographs of Defendant's vehicle.

Det. Raney testified on cross-examination that she did not find evidence in Defendant's vehicle despite the victim's testimony that she and Defendant had a history of sexual contact there. Det. Raney explained that the truck could have been cleaned in the months between the relationship and the police investigation.

NOPD Special Agent Edward Camacho testified that he was stationed at the NOPD's Second District and served as an NOPD Certified Spanish Interpreter. Agt. Camacho stated that he interpreted Defendant's NOPD interview and Mirandized him.⁵ During the course of the interview, Defendant described assisting the victim with cleaning her home when she admitted that she “liked him.” Defendant claimed that he informed his wife about the victim's feelings for him. Agt. Camacho testified that Defendant denied exchanging phone numbers with the victim. Defendant further claimed that the victim obtained his phone number from her father's phone.

Agt. Camacho testified that during the interrogation, Defendant refuted that the victim was ever alone with him or in his truck. However, Defendant later admitted he was alone with the victim multiple times. Agt. Camacho further explained that Defendant also recanted his denial that there was any touching between himself and the victim, stating that the victim touched his hair and arm and had hugged him.

On cross-examination, Agt. Camacho explained that he did not provide “a literal word-for-word interpretation.” He further testified that Defendant claimed to be unfamiliar with receiving any messages from the victim. Defendant claimed to only be aware of the victim's messages because his wife informed him about them. Agt. Camacho further testified that Defendant denied touching the victim, except for her hair and hand. Defendant also claimed that the victim undressed in front of him. Lastly, Agt. Camacho testified Defendant stated that the victim informed Defendant that she was inappropriately touched by a family member.

NOPD Det. Alan Seaton testified that he is assigned to the NOPD's Digital Forensics Unit since 2013, and has 15 years of law enforcement experience. He testified as to the forensic investigation he conducted of communications exchanged between a black iPhone and a pink L.G. phone, the latter of which he identified as belonging to the victim.⁶ He explained that he used “Cellebrite” software to conduct a search of the phones, which he described as “the most intrusive search.” Both phones were introduced into evidence.

Det. Seaton explained that he completed an extraction and generated a full report for the Pink LG phone, which was admitted into evidence. He further recounted being unable to unlock the black iPhone; however, he successfully accessed its SIM card that provided 409-313-3517 as the associated phone number for that phone. Set. Seaton testified that the number 409-313-3517 was saved in the victim's phone under the name “Kevin.” He searched the victim's phone for calls to and from the black iPhone, yielding a finding that numerous calls were made between the two phones from July 11, 2022, to October 1, 2022. He explained that calls were made in both directions and some were made late at night. He further testified that on October 1, 2022, someone operating the number associated the Pink L.G. phone blocked the number associated with the Black iPhone on the cell phone application WhatsApp. This was the last contact Det. Seaton found between the two phones. He also stated that there were no calls to or from the victim's phone to the Defendant's wife's phone.

On cross-examination, Det. Seaton testified that he only knew which phone initiated the calls as well as the times and durations of the calls, but he did not know the content of the calls nor who made the calls. He stated that he did not find anything inappropriate, such photos or pornography, on the phones, nor did he find any text messaged exchanged between the two phones. He stated that texts could have been deleted prior to his analysis.

Defendant's Wife's testimony

Sindy Ramos Villanueva testified she is the Defendant's wife and that they lived together in 2022. She stated that she knew the victim because Defendant worked with the victim's father and she had met the victim at a barbecue at the victim's house.

Ms. Villanueva denied seeing any phone calls or text messages between the victim and the Defendant on the Defendant's phone. She testified that when she noticed a message on Defendant's phone from an unregistered number, she replied to message using Defendant's phone. She realized that it was the victim messaging Defendant. She testified that the victim obtained Defendant's number from the victim's father's phone. Ms. Villanueva stated she was not angry, believing Defendant was faithful to her. She further testified that she never confronted the victim in person nor spoke to the victim's parents. After confirming her phone number, Ms. Villanueva testified that Defendant's phone number was 409-313-3517.

On cross-examination, Ms. Villanueva testified she had visited the victim's home twice for parties. She further stated that she used her access to Defendant's phone to communicate with the victim when the victim texted “hi” to Defendant's phone. Ms. Villanueva testified that she and Defendant shared phones and she switched phones with Defendant and instructed the victim to use the other number.

Ms. Villanueva stated that she wanted to learn the nature of the relationship between Defendant and the victim, so she texted the victim, asking for a kiss. The victim called in response, but Ms. Villanueva did not answer and the text exchange ceased. Eventually, Ms. Villanueva identified herself and told the victim to “stop bothering my husband.” Ms. Villanueva testified that she confronted Defendant about his relationship with the victim and he denied having “sexual relations” with the victim.

On redirect, Ms. Villanueva testified that she texted with the victim for three days, during the mid-day only. She did not find any evidence of calls on the WhatsApp phone application nor did she find evidence of deleted text messages from Defendant's phone to the victim. Lastly, she stated that she never called the victim using Defendant's phone.

Victim's Testimony

The victim testified she was a thirteen year-old student at Homer Plessy Community School. She met Defendant when she was eleven years-old and he was 22. The first time the pair talked was when “[h]e was drinking with my dad, and I was cleaning outside.” She explained that they communicated via text messages and WhatsApp.

The victim testified they would have sexual contact when they met. The victim testified that in the beginning of their relationship the Defendant stated that he loved her, but he later asked to have sexual contact with her. When she refused, Defendant described sex as “a love test” to prove she loved him. She further testified that Defendant would also kiss and touch her.

She further described that the first time they had sexual contact the experience was painful and she cried. This angered Defendant, who expressed his frustration, so she “got quiet” and “sucked up her tears” because she believed she loved him. The victim did not specify the amount of times the Defendant had sexual contact with her. The victim shared “[m]y dad would drink, and once my dad is very drunk he can't hear anything. So, he would fall asleep, and I would just sneak out.” She further described going to an abandoned house next to the victim's house or a nearby park with Defendant.

She testified that she had been taught sex education in school and from her mother. She was fearful of becoming pregnant and shared this fear with Defendant, who claimed to have taken pills that would prevent him from impregnating girls. While she initially believed him, she later realized his statement was false. She identified Defendant in court as “the man who raped” her.

The victim testified Defendant's wife “would text me off his phone and call me names,” but that she never called Defendant's wife's phone.

The victim initially did not tell anyone about her sexual contact with Defendant. She eventually told Godmother when she asked whether the victim had a boyfriend over a meal. She testified she did not tell Mother, because she “was very scared of how she was going to react, and if she was going to believe me or not.” Godmother did inform Mother, who then talked to the victim. The victim explained that “I started to cry cause I got really scared, but she said she believed me.” She further testified that they filed a police report from the victim's school the next day.

On cross-examination, the victim testified Defendant worked with her father. She did not recall her father leaving his phone in Defendant's truck. Defendant would attend barbecues at her house. The victim gave Defendant her phone number. She testified that she did not get Defendant's number from her father's phone. Defendant's wife would call and text her from Defendant's phone to insult the victim. The victim confirmed that Defendant eventually texted her that he did not want to see her anymore, which she felt “was kind of weird because earlier he had said that he loved me and called me his princess.”

On redirect, she testified Defendant first told her that he “liked her” when she was cleaning up after her father and Defendant. At that time, Defendant stood behind her and touched her so she “could feel his private part touch my back.” She explained that Mother was at work and her father was passed out after drinking all night.

Errors Patent and Assignment of Error

A review of the record does not reveal any errors patent. Appellant's sole assignment on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Insufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant avers that the State presented insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions. In support of this alleged error, he raises three arguments. First, he alleges that his convictions are based on “uncorroborated allegations” and claims “[t]here was no physical, scientific, medical, or any other type of evidence linking [Defendant] to the alleged offenses.” Additionally, he asserts that the victim lacked credibility and what she testified to was a “fairytale” based on her “avid crush” on him and a “fiction.” Lastly, Defendant avers that the State presented insufficient proof that any of the victim's allegations occurred.

The State responds that witness credibility determinations fall within the jury's purview. Moreover, it avers that this Court does not have the authority to reweigh the evidence to check the correctness of the jury's credibility determination. We agree.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

When assessing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, the reviewing court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Appellate review must include the whole record, just as a rational fact finder's review does. State v. Gibson, 15-0682, p. 13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/27/16), 186 So.3d 772, 780. “It is not the function of the appellate court to assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence.” State v. Richards, 11-0349, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/1/11), 78 So.3d 864, 869 (citing State v. Cummings, 668 So.2d 1132 (La. 1996)). “Upon review of the record as a whole, if rational triers of fact could disagree as to the interpretation of the evidence, the rational trier's view of all the evidence must be adopted.” State v. Bradley, 18-0734, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/15/19), 272 So.3d 94, 97 (citation omitted).

“Absent internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, a single witness's testimony, if believed by the fact finder, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion.” State v. Bowie, 24-0700, p. 13 (La App. 4 Cir. 7/1/25), 424 So.3d 87, 96, writ denied, 25-00959 (La. 12/9/25), 422 So.3d 300. In sexual offense cases, “the testimony of the victim alone may be sufficient to establish the elements of a sexual offense, even where the State does not introduce medical, scientific, or physical evidence to prove the commission of the offense.” State v. Barbain, 15-0404, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/4/15), 179 So.3d 770, 778 (citation omitted).

First Degree Rape

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:42 defines First Degree Rape, in pertinent part, as:

“First degree rape is a rape committed ․ where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances: ․ When the victim is under the age of thirteen years.”

In the instant matter, the State established at trial that the age element of the first degree rape statute was met by proving that the victim was 11 years old and the Defendant was 22 when the sexual abuse began.

Moreover, proof of the Defendant being in sexual contact with the victim was established via witness testimony at trial. The record reflects that the jury acted rationally in accepting as true the victim's testimony describing sexual contact with Defendant. The victim's testimony alone established sufficient evidence that Defendant committed first degree rape pursuant to Barbain.

To this, add that the testimony adduced at trial from the other witnesses corroborates the victim's testimony. Both Dr. Mehta and Ms. Moore testified that the lack of any physical findings of abuse in the victim's medical examination is a normal outcome and consistent with delayed disclosure, which is typical in child abuse cases such as this. Additionally, the victim at various times confided in Godmother, Mother, Ms. Fry, and finally, Ms. Moore, how Defendant initially approached her and coerced her into having sexual contact.

The NOPD investigation results provided more confirmation of abuse. Det. Seaton presented evidence revealing numerous phone calls were exchanged between the victim and Defendant's phones from July to October 2022, when the victim blocked Defendant's phone number, saved in her phone under Defendant's first name. Moreover, Det. Seaton's testimony regarding this multi-month communication between the victim and Defendant's respective devices provided jurors with a rational basis to conclude a relationship existed between the victim and Defendant.

Despite Ms. Villanueva's testimony that she briefly communicated with the victim using Defendant's phone, the jury clearly determined that the vast majority of the communications originating from Defendant's phone were made by Defendant himself. The jury rationally rejected Defendant's denial of sexual contact with the victim changing his initial police statement— that he never contacted the victim— to later admitting hugging and touching her arm and hair. Accordingly, the jurors rationally rejected Defendant's denials of a relationship to his wife and the NOPD, reasoning that the State established the requirements of first degree rape at trial. This assignment of error is without merit.

Indecent Behavior with a Juvenile

Indecent behavior with a juvenile is defined as “[a]ny lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of any child under the age of seventeen, where there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons.” La. R.S. 14:81(A).

The record reveals Defendant committed many “lewd” acts with the victim, including touching her from behind during their first encounter, and later convincing her to continuously have sexual contact with him under the false premise that such contact was a “love test.” Additionally, as discussed above in regard to Defendant's first degree rape conviction, the jury rationally accepted the victim's testimony and found Defendant's testimony not credible.

As previously discussed, the victim was under the age of thirteen when the 22-year-old Defendant began sexually abusing her. Therefore, pursuant to La. R.S. 14:81(H)(2), both the victim and Defendant met the statute's age requirements for sentencing purposes. The State's evidence sufficed to prove indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen. This assignment of error is without merit.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant's convictions and sentences for first degree rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State introduced the victim's birth certificate into evidence.

2.   Mother testified that the victim previously informed her that she (the victim) was inappropriately touched by an uncle in Mexico, but Mother did not confront the uncle about this behavior.

3.   The State introduced a recording of the 911 call into evidence.

4.   The State introduced a copy of the victim's certified medical records into evidence.

5.   The Miranda Rights Form and the videotaped interview were admitted into evidence.

6.   Both phones were admitted into evidence at trial.

Judge Rachael D. Johnson