By Robert Tomlinson
News Director
CENTREVILLE — A possible plea offer is on the table for a man accused of sexually assaulting two girls in Sturgis last year.
In a hearing Monday, May 12, Prosecutor Deborah Davis said the offer on the table was for Miguel Hernandez-Ruiz to plead guilty to three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and serve 10 years in prison in exchange for the dismissal of all other remaining charges and the dismissal of another criminal sexual conduct case filed against him that was bound over to Circuit Court in December.
No decision was made on the offer following the hearing. Currently, Hernandez-Ruiz is charged with one count of home invasion and two counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct with victims under the age of 13 after allegedly breaking into a home in the Sweet Lake Mobile Home Park outside of Sturgis in the early morning hours of March 20, 2024. The CSC charges can carry up to life in prison.
The offer, which was briefly discussed between the two sides prior to the start of the hearing, was brought up in court following arguments about a motion made by Anastase Markou, Hernandez-Ruiz’s lawyer, to quash the bind-over in the case due to what he saw as an error by St. Joseph County 3B District Court in re-opening proofs on the issue of identification of the suspect after both parties had rested their case in the preliminary hearing.
“Both parties had actually rested and proofs were closed in this matter, and the prosecutor then asked, essentially, for two remedies from the court: to reopen proofs – and I don’t know what the standard for review is on that – and the second thing the prosecutor asked for was to adjourn to permit the prosecutor time to bring in more witnesses. The defense objected,” Markou said. “He doesn’t specifically state that, I concede that, but you can’t ignore the fact that the proofs were closed, so there has to be two steps taken: One is permit the reopening of proofs, but also grant the adjournment to a different date. You couldn’t have the adjournment without the reopening of proofs.”
After arguments about whether to reopen proofs during the hearing, Markou said the judge – which in this case was District Court Judge Robert Pattison – ruled based on an “interest of justice standard” that there was a “sufficient reason” for the adjournment. When the preliminary hearing continued, there was additional testimony for witnesses on identification of the suspect. Identification, Markou added, was the key issue in the case, given the age of the victims involved, and that the prosecutor at the time, David Marvin, “knew full well” that was the case.
“It’s my argument that the record is completely not sufficient to have permitted the court to reopen proofs and adjourn the preliminary examination when the prosecutor who was handling the matter at the time knew full well that identification was the key issue on the case, knew that he had two young witnesses that may or may not be able to testify not only to the sexual acts that supposedly occurred, but also identification,” Markou said. “The prosecutor had already procured and already had cell site tower records but chose not to present it at the preliminary hearing, and the court rule is pretty clear on what good cause means, and the record the court has to establish, and none of that was done in this case.”
Markou then argued that the “only remedy” is dismissal of the case, and also argued that the two counts be cleared due to testimony from the young victims that he said wasn’t sufficient to establish those charges, adding later that he would agree to second-degree criminal sexual conduct charges. He also claimed there were was a “leading question” asked by the judge in the case, which the victim answered by reportedly agreeing with the question.
Circuit Court Judge Paul Stutesman brought up the possibility, if he did rule that the bind-over should not have happened, of the charges being dismissed and refiled. Markous acknowledged that could happen, but it could also come with questions about whether it would be appropriate to refile because of the original prosecutor not originally presenting all the evidence he had.
Davis, in her argument, said there wasn’t anything in a specific case Markou based part of his argument on regarding reopening proofs during preliminary exams – with Stutesman saying there wasn’t any case law – and noted that those hearings are, in general, “less detailed” than a jury trial, and that a prosecutor isn’t required to call every witness they have during such a hearing.
“The idea is for a probable cause standard to be met, and even if the prosecutor fails to present certain evidence at the prelim, it doesn’t require dismissal if sufficient evidence is presented otherwise,” Davis said.
Davis added that in order to avoid children testifying at a preliminary hearing, which is what occurred in the preliminary exam for this case, she would typically use a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE nurse) where victims are under 10 years old, and using exceptions “allowable for the statements made during their medical evaluation.”
Davis then argued that the court made a proper finding for what allegedly occurred to the victims, and that although there was more evidence that could’ve been presented during the first day of the preliminary exam, the court could’ve found probable cause based on testimony from responding officer Sgt. Paulino Hernandez or testimony from investigator Brian Stuck on that first day.
“A denial of the request to reopen proofs would’ve resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice and an undue hardship for these two minor victims,” Davis said. “A denial of the request would’ve likely resulted at most in a dismissal without prejudice, and a recharging of the complaint. This would result in a re-do of the prelim in front of the same court, thereby unduly burdening the criminal justice system, impeding judicial efficiency, and subjecting the minor children to unnecessary emotional harm by restarting the entire process.”
Stutesman then interjected, noting those are reasons “for the prosecutor to make sure they’re prepared to put on a prelim,” and that it shouldn’t be the court’s job to do the job of the prosecutor, adding it’s always been a “troubling balance to walk that line.”
Davis then continued that from the defendant’s standpoint, the risk of posting bond or potentially being deported while awaiting recharging would also be an “unfair burden,” with Davis saying the idea is to “have the evidence presented in a way that is able to make a decision and not some sort of gamesmanship in fairness to a defendant who’s being accused of heinous crimes.”
Markou rebutted briefly, saying Davis made no mention of testimony from one of the complaining witnesses, and that there wasn’t enough identification from the first day of the preliminary exam, other than a Jeep being located.
Stutesman estimated he would want to set a hearing three weeks from the May 12 date to make a decision on the defense’s motion, which led to the brief discussion of the plea offer. Markou said he would give his client time to think over the offer prior to the next hearing.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday, May 29 at 10:30 a.m.
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.
