Corozal Man Acquitted of Child Rape Attempt

A High Court judge has acquitted a Corozal man of attempting to rape a 13-year-old child. The judge found that despite disturbing circumstances surrounding the incident, the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Raphael Morgan delivered the verdict on January 23, 2026, in the case of The King v Jose Menjivar, finding the accused not guilty of Attempted Rape of a Child.

The acquittal does not mean the Court found the accused innocent of wrongdoing in any broader sense. Justice Morgan was explicit that being found naked in a bathroom with an underage child is “a reprehensible and abhorrent act.” But under Belizean criminal law, Menjivar was charged with a specific offense requiring specific proof, and on the evidence before the court, that proof was not established to the required standard.

The case arose from an incident alleged to have occurred on the evening of April 26, 2023 in the Corozal District. The alleged victim, a 13-year-old boy identified only as “Q” throughout the proceedings to protect his identity, claimed that Menjivar, lured him into his home, directed him to undress and enter an outdoor shower, joined him naked in the shower, explicitly told him he was going to rape him while touching himself, and physically restrained him when he tried to leave.

Q was only rescued, he said, by the timely arrival of his uncle, who lifted the curtain covering the bathroom entrance, found both Q and the accused naked and wet, and immediately took Q home. Q was seen crying and distressed. His mother called police that evening.

The prosecution described the incident as a textbook attempted rape, frustrated only by the uncle’s unexpected arrival, exactly the kind of external intervention that the law recognises as completing the definition of a criminal attempt.

The case was tried before Justice Morgan sitting alone without a jury, as required by Belizean law for serious offences including murder and certain sexual offences. Unusually, all ten prosecution witnesses gave agreed evidence, their statements were read into the record without cross-examination, accepted by the defence as admissible. The defence called no witnesses. The accused gave a dock statement, speaking without taking the oath.

In his dock statement, Menjivar denied the allegations and claimed he was physically incapable of committing the offence at the time, citing a prostate condition, the after-effects of a mini stroke, and an unhealed broken foot. He said he had medical records to prove it.

The Court rejected the medical defence outright. The agreed medical evidence showed only that Menjivar had an abdominal ultrasound months before the incident and visited an orthopaedic clinic in January 2023, neither establishing incapacity in April 2023. More significantly, in his own police interview, which he did not challenge, he had admitted to standing in the shower with Q, directly contradicting his claim of being wheelchair-bound or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Despite rejecting the accused’s defence, Justice Morgan still had to determine whether the prosecution’s own evidence was strong enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After careful analysis, he found it was not for several reasons.

The entire prosecution case rested on Q’s account of what happened inside the bathroom. No other witness saw the accused make Q undress, fondle himself, announce his intention to rape Q, or physically restrain Q from leaving. The uncle S, who arrived at the critical moment, saw the two naked and facing each other but saw none of the specific acts Q described.

The judge identified material inconsistencies between Q’s account and his uncle’s. Q said he had gone to his grandmother’s house first, found no one home, and was invited to the accused’s house while searching for slippers. S, however, watched Q ride his bicycle directly to the accused’s house and go inside with no stop at the grandmother’s. Q said the accused grabbed his arm to stop him leaving just as S arrived; S saw nothing of the kind when he lifted the curtain. Q said S told him to “get out of there,” recognising he was in danger; S said he simply asked both of them what they were doing.

The Court also found there was an evidential basis to suggest Q may have had an improper motive for his account, that upon being caught by his uncle in an unexplained situation, he may have constructed or embellished a story to avoid getting into trouble with his father.

“The Court is unsure whether Q went to his grandmother’s home first and then to the Accused’s home,” Justice Morgan wrote. “This directly impacts Q’s credibility as the invitation by the Accused into his home is one of the acts that taken together establish the attempted rape. Further, the Court is unsure as to whether the Accused tried to physically restrain Q from leaving.”

The acquittal is likely to be difficult for many in the public to accept, given the circumstances that were undisputed: an elderly man and a naked 13-year-old child were found together in a shower. The Court was frank about this.

“The Court understands that an adult being caught naked in a bathroom with an underage child can be rightfully seen as a reprehensible and abhorrent act,” Justice Morgan wrote, “but the Accused is not charged with simply being in the bathroom with a child.”

The law of criminal attempts requires not just disturbing circumstances, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt of specific intent and specific acts going beyond mere preparation toward the commission of rape. On the evidence presented, with its inconsistencies, possible improper motive, and the absence of any witness to the most serious alleged conduct, the Court could not reach that level of certainty.

The burden of proof, as always in Belizean criminal law, rests with the prosecution. Where reasonable doubt exists, the law requires an acquittal.