Man Faces Multiple Counts of Sexual Acts with a Minor

By Danielle Eden C. Silva and Fabiha Zaman

Victim Has Known Defendant Since She Was Nine

By Danielle Eden C. Silva

Department 14 reconvened the bench trial for Rene Nicolas Munoz, who is accused of multiple counts of sexual acts with a minor. There is no jury for this trial, and the judge will be the ruler on matters of law and procedure, as well as the finder of fact.

The alleged victim had known Mr. Munoz since she was nine years old, acknowledging him as a family friend. During her freshman year of high school, she and Mr. Munoz began a sexual relationship with one another. Her first act of sexual intercourse with Mr. Munoz came about on the Black Friday of 2012 (a popular shopping day) where she approached him. The victim informed the defendant she wished to have intercourse for the first time. After this, they went to Mr. Munoz’s home at her request.

Over the course of the relationship, the victim claimed having fear of the defendant due to physical threats and verbal abuse. This unease led her to move out of Woodland for a period of time and eventually calling the police upon suspecting the defendant intended to cause her bodily injury.

The afternoon session began with the cross-examination of the victim by the defense. The victim mentioned that in her junior year of high school, the 2014 to 2015 academic calendar, she began to have sexual intercourse with partners outside of Mr. Munoz and expressed to him multiple times she wished to end the relationship. This contrasted with her desire in her freshman and sophomore years to run away with the defendant. The defendant had mentioned to her he had a place in Texas to which they could retreat.

The victim had come to believe that Mr. Munoz was part of the gang the Barrio Azteca, or Los Aztecas, a Mexican-American gang formed in the 80s in the prisons near El Paso, Texas. Additionally, she believed the defendant had killed two people and that those bodies were hidden in Texas. Despite these claims, she never saw him doing any gang-affiliated activity.

Their sexual relationship extended to “sexting,” or the sending of lewd instant messages, picture, or videos.

In redirect by the prosecution, the victim shared that, because she was younger, she had not been sure what she wanted. She had been asked by the defendant to have his name tattooed on her at 16 or 17 years old. In correlation to the belief he was a gang member, Mr. Munoz had told her specific facts, such as information on Folsom Prison where he “met with kings,” and the use of his property on Texas to bury bodies.

Redirect also revealed that the victim and her friend, also a minor, had had concurrent intercourse with Mr. Munoz. The victim lied to her friend about having intercourse for money and her friend agreed to participate. Mr. Munoz willingly paid both of them.

Additionally, she was aware of the defendant’s girlfriend at the time, who is the mother of his children. At a social event, the victim had questioned why Mr. Munoz was with his girlfriend but the victim never stated she wanted him to leave said girlfriend.

Because she feared the defendant’s “bad temper,” which she elaborated on as being violent to the point where he knew she felt pain from his hits, she hid from him her sexual interactions with other partners. She lied about one sexual act she had during her relationship with Mr. Munoz, saying it had been before their relationship, despite that contradicting that she had told Mr. Munoz she was a virgin when they first had intercourse.

On the day she called the police, the victim believed the defendant was going to kill her. When the defendant had not been arrested, for lack of evidence, she began to panic in belief that he may retaliate. Despite the pressure she felt, the victim could not relocate because it would be difficult for her mother. The victim never told her mother the truth about Mr. Munoz because it was a sensitive topic.

Returning to cross-examination by the defense, the victim shared that her mother learned of the situation from the police. In addition, in one instance where the defense had asked if she had seen the defendant with one of the men she believed he killed, the victim noted she had been confused over which man they had mentioned. In regard to tattoos, the victim had wanted a butterfly tattoo.

After noting she was unperturbed by the reactions of the defendant’s family in the public viewing area, the victim was excused and placed as subject to recall.

The victim’s mother was sworn in and testified next.

The mother noted she had met Mr. Munoz through work. The defendant had met her daughter when she was nine or ten years old. Their families often spent time together and the mother was acquainted with Mr. Munoz’s girlfriend. During their relationship, the mother had not suspected anything and fully trusted Mr. Munoz.

Because her work hours were concurrent with her daughter’s school times, she couldn’t monitor her completely. The mother did note she and the victim had a relationship like best friends. She was surprised when one day her daughter called her at work, noting someone was going to kidnap and kill her. The mother instructed her daughter to call her the police and excused herself from work to go home. The witness noted the victim was in a panic and was very scared, telling the mother to go outside. She would not get the full details of the case until the police informed her at the station.

The mother had suggested her daughter move to Chico and register there as a high school student for some time. This change of location, the mother testified, had been due to the victim’s fear of the defendant. The victim had even shared she wanted to be homeschooled instead. While desired, financial difficulties prevented them from relocating completely.

This witness was excused and the arresting officer, Officer Kent Chan, appeared on the stand.

Officer Chan had been with the Woodland Police Department for 11 years, having served as a peace officer for 12. In February 2016, Officer Chan had been sent by dispatch to a location in Woodland. A subject by the name of Rene Munoz had been reported to be parked outside a house, possibly with a weapon. When the officer arrived, an elderly woman ran out of a house and pointed at a car. Officer Chan followed, pulled the vehicle over, and asked the driver for identification. After searching and questioning him, the officer learned the defendant, Mr. Munoz, had wanted to talk with them.

After several officers came to the scene to watch Mr. Munoz, Officer Chan went up to the house to speak with the caller. Through dispatch, he had learned her birthdate and figured out she was a minor. He informed her he had no reason to arrest Mr. Munoz at the moment but he did ask her for more details on their relationship. The victim shared she wanted to talk with the police alone and shared with them her messages. The investigation was then taken over by a detective and Mr. Munoz was detained. In cross-examination, Officer Chan revealed Mr. Munoz had no recorded gang affiliation.

The witness was excused. The trial will resume on February 15 at 9 am in Department 14.

Defendant Testifies in Statutory Rape Case

By Fabiha Zaman

On Thursday afternoon, defendant Rene Nicolas Munoz testified in his defense. Munoz is represented by defense attorney Russell Miller, who began the questioning of his client. He first asked about the victim, and the defendant admitted that he had sex with her as early as 2012. He said that the relationship lasted until 2016 and it included vaginal, anal, and oral sex.

The defendant said that the victim never said no and never mentioned that she did not want to have a sexual relationship at any point. They had sex at Munoz’s house, his truck, and the victim’s house.

Upon further questioning from Mr. Miller, Munoz revealed that the victim asked for money several times a month for things such as shopping and getting her nails done. Munoz said he always gave her money and gifts, and such exchanges were consistent throughout their relationship from 2012 to 2016.

According to the defendant, the victim’s mother also asked for money. The defendant gave the money to the victim, but did not know if it ended up with her mother. Additionally, Munoz mentioned that because he would frequent the victim’s house often, her mother caught them while they were having intercourse once in 2013. The victim’s mother then asked him to leave, and he said he left without saying anything to the mother.

The victim also told Munoz about prior sexual relations with other men often, which Munoz assumed was to make him jealous. He also added that the victim often would leave Woodland to go to Chico, Fresno, and Los Angeles during holidays to visit family.

Later the victim’s mother told him that she and her daughter got into a fight that turned physical, and the girl was sent away. But while the victim was gone, the defendant remained in contact with her through calls and texts.

Munoz admitted that he knew having sex with a minor was illegal and that the victim was aware of that as well, but he added that she would often threaten to tell on him or tell Munoz’s family and get him thrown into jail. This conduct occurred about two to three times a year, or when the victim got angry.

Additionally, the victim threatened him with going to the police, when Munoz attempted to break off the relationship due to the victim continuously talking about other guys she was sleeping with.

Mr. Miller then asked about specific exchanges over text message and the nature of those messages. Munoz said that he sent those types of messages because she liked that type of life and it was the role play that excited her.

The text messages were similar to the dialogue in the TV show Gangland, which Munoz said was the victim’s favorite show. She apparently liked the gangster fantasy life, and liked it when Munoz acted like a bad boy, doing things they should not be doing.

The victim had testified previously that Munoz was part of the Barrio Azteca gang, but the defendant said that he has never been in a gang and is not an active member. He also does not associate with people who are in gangs, and does not have any gang tattoos. Munoz added that he had never killed or had anyone killed.

During September 2015, the victim became pregnant. Munoz testified that she asked him for help to take her to the doctor’s appointment, however, he did not know what the appointment was for. The defendant did not know if it was his child or not, but the victim allegedly told him that she wanted it to be his.

She eventually had an abortion, which the defendant had deduced, but was never told so by the victim. Munoz did mention that he was against abortions for religious reasons. He attends church and still continues to go.

Munoz also added that the victim never wanted to break off the relationship. And though she had testified earlier to instances of physical abuse, Munoz was adamant that he had never done anything of that nature to her.

Mr. Miller questioned Munoz about the fact that the victim had testified earlier about his bad temper. However, Munoz said he definitely did not have a temper, in fact in his eight years of coaching youth baseball, he always taught the children to control their tempers even though it was sometimes difficult when they were upset with the game or certain events. Those who were unable to control their anger were benched. Munoz added that he was never thrown out of any game for his temper, including when he coached for regional and state levels.

The victim also really hated the defendant’s girlfriend. According to Munoz, the victim often called her names when she texted him.

Before Munoz was questioned by the People, he admitted he was extremely ashamed of the events that transpired. It was not something he was proud of and in fact had asked Mr. Miller to tell his family not to come because he was so ashamed. He also became emotional while explaining this to the court.

Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays, representing the People, then began her cross-examination of Munoz by reading about five to six different text message conversations where he seemed to be threatening the victim. Munoz said that the conversations were all part of their role play.

Ms. Hays also asked why Munoz never told the victim to stop having sexual relations with all these boys, but Munoz felt that the victim was extremely demanding, even with her mother, and she essentially got everything she wanted.

The victim often demanded sex as well, showing up at Munoz’s house unannounced. And when she had a vaginal infection or when she was on her period, she suggested they have anal sex.

The People then asked how he was able to hide this relationship from his girlfriend, but Munoz said he always lied to her saying he was going to a friend’s house or to his dad’s house, when in fact he was going to see the victim.

The victim had also slept with Munoz’s girlfriend’s son. Though Munoz did not think this was right, it did not bother him because he felt that being angry at the victim for that would lead to her making more threats.

When generally asked about the sexual relationship, Munoz answered that he had met the victim when she was 12, and began having sex with her two years later.

Ms. Hays asked Munoz, how the victim, being a minor, could have possibly trapped him, an adult man, in this kind of relationship. Munoz again answered that it was all about the threats she had made about calling the police or telling his family.

The prosecution then recalled the victim. During direct examination, she essentially testified to the opposite of everything Munoz had said. She said that her mother never caught her and Munoz having sex, and that she never told him about other guys she was sleeping with because she did not want him to find out. She also never made threats to him about breaking his family up or contacting the authorities.

In regard to the pregnancy, the victim said that she told Munoz everything, including the fact that it was his child and that she wanted to have an abortion.

Upon further questioning, the victim revealed that Gangland was not her favorite TV show and that Munoz was the one to show her an episode that included the Barrio Azteca gang. Munoz, she said, even claimed that he knew some of the guys in the episode.

Furthermore, contrary to Munoz’s testimony, the victim said that she never demanded sex nor did she ever engage in role play with Munoz.

During cross-examination, Mr. Miller questioned the witness about who actually introduced Gangland during the course of their relationship first. Once the victim became frustrated, Mr. Miller asked about the money and gifts that Munoz would give her, which she confirmed.

The victim said that if her mother had found out about the sexual relationship she had with Munoz, she would be extremely upset with her, yet she also added that even though she knows now, their relationship is stronger than ever.

She added that she felt sympathy for Munoz’s girlfriend because she was sleeping with him behind her back, yet she also admitted to calling her names because she was upset that Munoz would never leave his girlfriend to be with her.

The victim was then excused, and the defense began their closing arguments. Ms. Hays talked about how all the different counts were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. For instance, the burden to prove a bodily injury was met through the fact that the victim had an abortion. And the stalking charge only required two or more acts to be proven, which were demonstrated by the text messages the victim received about walking with other men after school.

Ms. Hays argued that what the defense was doing was congruous to victim blaming, and it was not okay that the defendant was lying about the nature of their relationship.

When Mr. Miller delivered his closing statements, he argued that, although every act between the victim and Munoz was wrong, it was still consensual. And he asked the court to pay attention to the fact that the victim called the police on Munoz very shortly after he said he would not leave his girlfriend for her, and that this was corroborated by the threats Munoz said he would receive from the victim.

After the brief closing statements from defense and prosecution, Judge David Rosenberg said that the verdict would be given on Tuesday, February 20, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 14 to allow the court to review the greater than 50 counts against the defendant.