Portales man acquitted on sex charges

Managing editor

[email protected]

Marco Nunez walked out of the Roosevelt County Courthouse on Friday afternoon after he was acquitted of allegations of criminal sexual contact.

But a jury was hung on other sex charges against Nunez, and his court battle will continue.

Nunez, 28, entered the week facing 10 charges related to alleged sexual contact with three underage victims:

• Three of the charges were dropped Thursday, all related to one of the alleged victims.

• On Friday, three additional charges were dropped, and Nunez received a not guilty verdict on charges of criminal sexual contact and unlawfully showing motion pictures to minors. Both charges were related to a second alleged victim.

• The jury was unable to reach a decision on the final two charges — criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact. Those charges were related to a third alleged victim, who claims Nunez inappropriately touched her on multiple occasions.

On Friday, defense attorney Jennifer Burrill called just one witness for the defense’s case — Nunez’ son, Joel Chaj.

The 15-year-old testified that on April 17, 2015, he was with his dad for 12 hours as part of a class assignment to go to work with a parent. That was a day one of Nunez’ alleged victims claimed inappropriate touching, and the day authorities were notified.

In closing arguments, Burrill reminded the jury the state only had the word of the two girls, and no evidence or witnesses to corroborate their accusations.

In Thursday testimony, Portales Police Officer Jonathan Brashear testified on the initial investigation he conducted while working for the Roosevelt County Sheriff’s Office. He said the mothers of two of the alleged victims declined allowing physical exams on the girls.

Burrill noted one of the alleged victims changed her story in each interview that was conducted regarding her clothing and said nothing about the final incident of sexual contact until a year after charges were first made.

“The truth doesn’t change. No matter how many times you tell it, it would stay the same,” Burrill said. “Why does she change her story a full year later? The state has failed to produce any evidence that corroborated her story.”

Assistant District Attorney Jake Boazman dismissed each point from Burrill in arguments:

• On the changes in a victim’s story: “Just because she characterized (her clothing) as pants (and underwear another time) doesn’t mean she changed her story.”

• On the year between filed charges and the final sexual contact accusation: “You heard the victim say she was scared, she was uncomfortable and she didn’t want to talk about it.”

• On a lack of other witnesses: “If you’re going to make a decision to touch a child inappropriately, are you going to wait until others are around or are you going to wait until no one else is around? How long do you need to commit these acts? That event could take place in 15 seconds.”

On the two outstanding charges, Boazman asked they be placed on the docket for a return to trial. Burrill did not object and was granted a request to keep the previous bond in place.