Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Pathak

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department C

July 11, 2013

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
v.
ANURAG PATHAK, Appellant.

Not for Publication -Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2008-165670-001 DT The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge

Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel William S. Simon, Assistant Attorney General Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee.

James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Paul J. Prato, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge.

¶1 Anurag Pathak ("defendant") appeals his criminal conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [1]

¶2 On October 20, 2008, Detective G.M., a member of the Crimes Against Children Unit, learned of a Child Protective Services (CPS) referral alleging that a young girl had been sexually abused by defendant. The girl and her mother were brought to the Child Help children's center, [2] where Detective G.M. conducted forensic interviews.

¶3 Defendant was indicted for sexual abuse, a class 3 felony and dangerous crime against children, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ("A.R.S.") section 13-1404 (2010).[3] The indictment alleged that defendant intentionally or knowingly engaged in direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the female breast of a minor under fifteen years of age.

¶4 A four-day jury trial was held. During the State's case-in-chief, Detective G.M. testified about his interviews, and his videotaped interview of the victim was played. During that interview, the detective told the victim several times that he planned to talk to defendant about what happened. The State ended its direct examination of Detective G.M. with the following colloquy:

Q. Now, after you interviewed [the victim] and had spoken to [her mother], what did you do after that?
A. We coordinated a little bit with CPS as far as their safety plan goes, and then I made contact or had Mr. Pathak brought down for an interview with me.
Q. And did he talk ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.