Testimony in the trial of Carlos Martinez, a former Monroe Police officer charged with sex crimes, concluded last week, the jury leaving Friday afternoon without reaching a verdict. The jury began its deliberations on Thursday.
Prosecutors allege Martinez, 61, used his position as a police officer to cultivate a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl, who was his family's babysitter when the reported abuse began. Due to intricacies related to the statute of limitations, the charges against Martinez have been amended twice since he was initially charged in 2013. Currently, he is being charged with one count of voyeurism and one count of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
A Monroe police officer for 20 years, Martinez served as a DARE officer in the Monroe School District for seven years, and was appointed to the Monroe School Board in 2006, where he served until December 2007. He was forced into retirement in 2009, after the Monroe Police Department began an internal investigation over allegations of a domestic dispute between Martinez and his then-wife.
He then separated from his wife, re-enlisted in the military and moved to Texas with the young woman.
By then the girl was over 18, and the two engaged in a consensual sexual relationship. They lived together in Texas until late 2011, when the relationship became tumultuous. They continued to see each other up until Nov. 18, 2011, when the young woman went to Texas authorities with two VHS tapes Martinez had taken of her without her knowledge when she was 15.-á
Taken while she was babysitting in the Martinez home, the VHS tapes are key evidence in the case. In order to prove voyeurism, the defense must demonstrate that the footage was taken for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Martinez admits he took video footage of the young woman in various stages of undress in the bathroom of his home sometime before May 31, 2004. The defense hinges on Martinez's assertion he did not take the videos for the purposes of sexual gratification, but out of concern for the girl.
He testified that at some point, possibly in April 2004, the young woman approached him and said she had cut herself in the abdomen. He said he installed the video cameras to see if she actually had any cuts on her body, concerned that she might be engaged in self-harm.
Snohomish County Deputy Prosecutor Lisa Paul asked Martinez why he chose to position the cameras in the bathroom.
"Because the bathroom is the most likely place where I would be able to get a view of her skin that was not normally exposed in regular clothes,GÇ¥ Martinez said.
He testified he hid one camera in a clock radio he had modified to accommodate the video equipment. The other, hidden in a laundry hamper, was eventually removed. He put the cameras on a timer, setting them to begin recording after 9 or 10 p.m. on nights when the young woman was babysitting.
"To the best of my recollection, I think I set it for after 9-ish, maybe 10, when the kids would be in bed,GÇ¥ Martinez said.
The date the young woman first learned of the VHS tapes is paramount to the prosecution, which must prove she did not become aware of the tapes until on or after June 26, 2008, due to the statute of limitations.
During testimony, the young woman said she wasn't aware of the tapes until November 2011, but the defense alleges she was aware of the tapes as early as the summer of 2007.
Testimony given by Martinez and the alleged victim about when sexual activity first occurred between the two differs. The young woman alleges Martinez first touched her sexually when she was approximately 14. The defense alleges the relationship didn't become sexual until after she turned 18.
During testimony last Tuesday, Paul accused Martinez of tailoring his testimony to fit the evidence. The case was investigated by the Washington State Patrol, after Texas authorities declined to press charges. She asked Martinez why he didn't simply tell the police his reason for taking the videos in October 2012, when state patrol detectives questioned him.
Paul asked him, if he had been worried that she was cutting herself, why not just tell the state patrol right away?-á -á
"Isn't it true, Mr. Martinez, that what you did on Friday is tailor your testimony to fit the evidence? And isn't that why your testimony Friday was different from what you told the state patrol?GÇ¥
Martinez denied tailoring his testimony.
Forensic analysis on Martinez's hard drive revealed the former police sergeant had spent time from Nov. 19GÇô21, 2011, researching Washington statute of limitations laws.
Closing arguments in the case were heard on Wednesday, Nov. 4, and the jury spent two full days in deliberations before breaking for the weekend. Both voyeurism and depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct are felonies.
Photo by Chris Hendrickson Several witnesses were recalled to the stand last week for additional testimony, including MartinezGÇÖs alleged victim, the alleged victimGÇÖs mom and Detective Carlos Rodriguez from the Washington State Patrol.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment