Excerpts from the Opinion:
John Vigna v. State of Maryland, No. 1327, September Term, 2017. Opinion by Nazarian, J.
CRIMINAL LAW – CHARACTER EVIDENCE – CHARACTER OF ACCUSED
In a child sex abuse case, the accused’s reputation for appropriate interactions with children
under their care is not a pertinent trait of character under Maryland Rule 5-404(a)(2)(A).
John Vigna was a long-time teacher at Cloverly Elementary, a public school in
Montgomery County. In 2016, several students reported that Mr. Vigna had touched them
inappropriately in his classroom, dating back as early as the 2001-2002 school year. Under
the guise of a warm and affectionate teaching style, Mr. Vigna allegedly hugged female
students and held them in his lap as he fondled their bodies through their clothing. He was
tried in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and, on June 9, 2017, convicted of one
count of Child Abuse, three counts of Sex Abuse of a Minor, and five counts of Sex Offense
in the Third Degree.
Mr. Vigna raises primarily evidentiary issues on appeal. First, he argues that the
circuit court improperly excluded testimony (he describes it as character evidence) that
Mr. Vigna had a reputation in the community for interacting appropriately with children
under his care. Second, he argues that the circuit court improperly admitted reprimands he
had received in previous school years for interacting inappropriately with students in the
classroom. Third, he contends that the circuit court improperly admitted a school
counselor’s hearsay testimony relaying one victim’s reports of her sexual abuse. And
finally, he argues that the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings violated his right to a fair trial
under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We disagree and affirm in toto.
...The issue before us, therefore, is whether Mr. Vigna’s reputation in the
community for appropriately interacting with children bears on whether he sexually abused
them. We agree with the circuit court that it does not.
This narrow issue is one of first impression in Maryland...
...Sexual predators are “not instantly recognizable as the ‘dirty old man in the
raincoat.’” Anne-Marie McAlinden, Setting ‘Em Up: Personal, Familial, and Institutional
Grooming in the Sexual Abuse of Children, 15 SOC. AND LEGAL STUD. 339, 348 (2006).
They blend into the community and often stand in trust relationships—coaches, clergy,
teachers, physicians, or family members—with their victims. Id. Offenders “groom”
victims through these relationships and “skillfully manipulate a child into a situation where
he or she can be more readily sexually abused and is simultaneously less likely to disclose.”
Id. at 346.7 Recent news accounts demonstrate how offenders exploit trust relationships,
not only with children but also their parents and the community at large, to gain access to
victims.8 Before these allegations became public, there undoubtedly were colleagues, parents, and other children who could have testified honestly that they believed those
abusers were appropriate with children and much beloved by the community for the strong
relationships they formed with them.
To admit a community member’s opinion about a defendant’s reputation for
propriety with children would fail to “consider that sex offenders may [] groom not just the
child but also their family or the wider community as a necessary prerequisite to gaining
access” to child victims. Id. at 341. In this way, they “ingratiate themselves with children
and infiltrate themselves into unsuspecting . . . communities. . . . To do this successfully,
they must pass themselves off as being very nice, usually, men who simply like children.”..
...But an adult’s public
interaction with children under his care doesn’t make it any more or less likely that the alleged victims were abused by him privately. And because it’s not relevant, it’s not
admissible under Rule 5-404(a)(2)(A)...
...Mr. Vigna counters that his victims allege they were abused in public and that the
reputation evidence he seeks to admit is therefore appropriate. But although it is true that
much of the reported abuse took place in his classroom, with other students in the room,
the victims explained that Mr. Vigna took active steps to avoid detection. His victims were
abused most frequently during the chaos of the classroom at dismissal time, or during
showings of videos when the room was darkened and other students’ attention was
distracted...
...Until Ms. Sobieralski’s body safety class, ----. didn’t understand that Mr. Vigna’s
behavior toward her was sexually abusive. As soon as she understood that Mr. Vigna had
touched her inappropriately, she became upset and told her teacher and school counselor
about what had happened. The delay between the onset of the abuse and A.C.’s complaint
is explained readily by A.C.’s young age and close and trusting relationship with
Mr. Vigna. And although we know that Mr. Vigna’s abuse of A.C. spanned a period of
years, “[n]owhere in any case of which we are aware does the applicability of Rule 5-
802.1(d) . . . hinge upon the victim reporting the first act of abuse.” Gaerian, 159 Md. App.
at 538. (cleaned up). We agree with the circuit court that A.C.’s complaint was prompt
within the meaning of Rule 5-802.1...
It is interesting that the opinion references several other state opinions and specific relevant cases.
ReplyDelete