Life Sentence Must Be Imposed Following Jury Verdict In Molestation Case

mugshot
Nathan D. Rojas

A Cochise County man convicted last week of engaging in sexual conduct with a minor back in 2016 will be sentenced later this month, but the hearing is simply a formality because state law requires the judge to impose a sentence of life imprisonment.

Nathan D. Rojas was found guilty July 17 on the sole charge that he used a sex toy to penetrate the anus of a girl, then age 5, in a bedroom at his house on Aug. 25, 2016. The girl attended a daycare run by Rojas’ mother on the same street and had gone with Rojas to pick up snacks at his house.

The Cochise County Sheriff’s Office has been ordered to transport Rojas on July 27 from jail to the Cochise County Superior Court in Bisbee for sentencing. And when Presiding Judge James Conlogue announces that sentence, it will be life in prison as mandated by ARS 13-705A, Arizona’s dangerous crimes against children statute.

In addition, Rojas will not be eligible for suspension of his sentence, probation, pardon, or release from confinement except for extremely limited circumstances until he has served 35 years in custody or his sentence is commuted by the governor.

Rojas came under investigation by the Sierra Vista Police Department the evening of Aug. 25, 2016 after the girl complained during bath time of tenderness in her “privates.” She reportedly told the mother she couldn’t talk about it, as it was “a secret” between her and Rojas.

The mother, who previously had a brief affair with the married Rojas, had her boyfriend call his ex-wife, a nurse practitioner, to come speak with the girl. The ex-wife later advised that the police must be notified, which led to the girl being seen at a local hospital. She was found to have no apparent injuries.

The next day the girl provided a detailed description of Rojas’ bedroom and described the “pointy stick” placed in her anus. Rojas was arrested and evidence matching the girl’s statement was seized from his home.

This month’s trial was the second time Rojas stood before a jury in the same case. He was convicted in July 2018 on the same charge, but the judge who presided over that trial ordered a new trial due to concerns the jurors may have been influenced by a social media video showing the jurors in the jury box listening to testimony.

Court rules prohibit the dissemination of any images of the jurors in the courtroom. One juror learned of the video from a friend who recognized the juror and commented on the case. The juror then advised several others on what was set to be the first day of deliberations.

The judge for the first trial, Wallace Hoggatt, had granted permission to a local man to record some of the witness testimony despite objections from Rojas’ defense team. Hoggatt initially denied a defense motion for a mistrial before the jury’s verdict was announced.

But days later Hoggatt changed his mind, noting he “cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper extraneous information did not taint the verdict.”

Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre challenged the order for a new trial to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing the verdict should stand because each juror insisted they could remain impartial despite the video. The court of appeals affirmed Hoggatt’s discretion in deciding the video caused prejudice to Rojas’ right to a fair trial.

Jurors in the trial earlier this month heard from about one dozen witnesses, most of whom testified in 2018 including the girl’s mother, the nurse practitioner, three Sierra Vista police officers, and Rojas’ mother who ran the daycare. They also heard from the girl, now age 9.

Rojas and his wife also took the stand in both trials. The theme of Rojas’ testimony was that any physical contact he had with the girl occurred when he helped her wipe after she used a bathroom, although his recollection of that contact changed somewhat from the first trial.

But this time there was a significant difference in the testimony of Rojas’ wife, who contended she was not forthcoming with police officers in 2016 because they were asking about her sex life. She also testified that her answers at the 2018 trial about a sex toy used by the couple back in 2016 were incorrect because she assumed detectives were asking about a different item.

A state crime lab specialist testified in both trials that the girl’s DNA was found on a clear, glass sex toy seized by detectives from the Rojas house. Rojas’ wife, however, testified last week that in 2016 and 2018 she thought she was being questioned about a clear, plastic toy.

But jurors then heard testimony about phone conversations between Rojas and his wife leading up to the recent trial. Some of the calls were recorded by jail officials and suggest the couple were formulating the wife’s testimony.

The jurors also heard about DNA and serology evidence that included sperm on the inside of the back part of her underwear. The girl’s DNA was also found on the glass sex toy and there were sperm cells, likely transferred from the object, around the girl’s anus.

Nearly four years after the girl’s bath time statement, jurors returned a guilty verdict in less than two hours. It was the result expected by lead prosecutor Michael Powell, who tried the case with Terisha Driggs, a fellow deputy county attorney.

“For a second time, a jury of 12 has examined the evidence against Nathan Rojas and determined that beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty of Sexual Conduct with a Minor,” he said later. “It is unfortunate that justice for the minor victim and her family has been delayed for four years. However, the County Attorney’s Office will always pursue justice for those who are harmed by others, even if it means, as here, doing a trial twice.”