Court to hear arguments in dismissed sex case

The Arizona Court of Appeals has agreed to hear arguments over a Maricopa County Superior Court judge’s decision to dismiss a sexual misconduct case against former Scottsdale Saguaro High School assistant football coach Tom Porras.

'Massage' sex abuse case tossed out of court

Attorney seeks to bar confession

Judge Helene Abrams ruled in February to grant defense attorney Amy Nguyen’s motion that Scottsdale police had violated Porras’ Fifth Amendment constitutional right to remain silent when he told officers three times during questioning that he wanted to talk to a lawyer.

Tom Porras

However, Porras, now 50, continued to answer questions from officers about an alleged “athletic massage” he gave to a 17-year-old girl at his home in April 2007, when she was wearing a bikini. Porras admitted to performing an inappropriate act over the girl after the former substitute teacher pulled down her bikini bottoms as she was resting over an exercise ball, according to court documents.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office filed an appeal, and the appellate court is reviewing the case. It will begin hearing arguments Sept. 11.

If the court rules that Abrams was incorrect in her decision to dismiss the case, it would be sent back to the county court and heard again, according to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.

Porras was facing a felony count of sexual abuse and a misdemeanor count of public sexual indecency. He rejected a plea offer that would have sentenced him to two months in jail and required him to register as a sex offender.

Barnett Lotstein, special assistant to County Attorney Andrew Thomas, said that Porras’ constitutional rights weren’t violated because he continued to answer questions from Scottsdale police detectives when they spoke to him in an office at Saguaro.

Nguyen told the Tribune on Wednesday that she believes the appellate court will affirm Abrams’ decision.

“The court’s decision could take six months to a year or even longer,” Nguyen said. “Judge Abrams’ decision was not a controversial ruling at all, it just so happens that the state doesn’t like it. The judge’s decision was squarely within the parameters of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”