CCJ Dismisses Julio Recino’s Appeal, Upholds Conviction in Rape of a Child

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has dismissed Julio Recino’s application for special leave to appeal. Represented by attorney Nazira Uc Espat-Myles, Recinos was convicted for the offence of rape of a child by the Court of Appeal of Belize on August 16.

The virtual complainant was 11 years old at the time of the offence. She gave uncorroborated evidence that on 21 August 2016 she went to the Recino’s corn mill to purchase corn tortillas. Recinos began kissing her on her cheeks and lips, grabbed her, and raped her. When he saw a little girl approaching the shop, he stopped and put his pants back on. The virtual complainant returned home without reporting the incident to anyone. Five days later the police received an anonymous report that a minor had been abused. The child and her mother were then escorted to the police station, where the child provided investigators with an official complaint.

A doctor confirmed that the child was carnally known. Recinos was convicted on May 2, 2019, of the rape of a child and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

Recinos did not appeal his sentence. His appeal was on two grounds, namely: “That the learned trial judge’s directions to the jury were inadequate in that she omitted to point out a crucial discrepancy between the evidence of the VC and Dr. Perraza; and ii. That the summing up was not balanced, as the weaknesses in the Crown’s case were not sufficiently analysed and put to the jury.”

The Belize Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds in a unanimous decision.

Recinos then filed an application for special leave to appeal to the CCJ on the same grounds. The CCJ dismissed the application on the basis that there were no discrepancy between Dr Perraza’s testimony and the directions by the trial judge to the jury, that the trial judge had given a summation that was balanced and fair to both the accused and to the prosecution, and that there is no basis for considering that the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing this ground.