In a verdict that has sparked widespread public discussion, Belize’s Supreme Court has acquitted 46-year-old Jose Menjivar, a resident of Corozal District, on charges of attempted rape of a 13-year-old minor. Delivered on January 23, 2026 by Justice Raphael Morgan in the case of *The King v Jose Menjivar*, the not guilty finding turned on a core principle of Belizean criminal law: the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even when the circumstances of the case are deeply disturbing.
The case traces back to an incident alleged to have occurred on the evening of April 26, 2023, in Corozal. The alleged victim, a 13-year-old boy protected by the court pseudonym “Q” to safeguard his identity, claimed that Menjivar lured him into his home, ordered him to undress and enter an enclosed outdoor shower, joined him naked, stated explicitly he intended to rape Q while touching himself, and physically blocked Q from escaping when he tried to flee. According to Q’s testimony, he was only saved by the sudden arrival of his uncle, who pulled back the curtain covering the shower entrance, found both the boy and Menjivar naked and wet, and immediately escorted the distraught, crying child home. Q’s mother contacted law enforcement that same night.
Prosecutors argued the incident fit the legal definition of attempted rape perfectly: the crime was only interrupted by the uncle’s unanticipated intervention, an external factor that legally satisfies the criteria for a criminal attempt under Belizean law. Consistent with Belizean procedural rules for serious violent and sexual offenses, the case was heard by a judge alone without a jury. In an unusual procedural turn, all 10 of the prosecution’s witnesses submitted agreed-upon testimony; their statements were entered into the court record without cross-examination, and the defense did not challenge the admissibility of the evidence. The defense presented no witnesses of its own, and Menjivar delivered an unsworn dock statement in his own defense.
In his statement, Menjivar denied all allegations, claiming he was physically incapable of committing the offense at the time of the alleged incident, citing a chronic prostate condition, lingering aftereffects of a mini-stroke, and an unhealed broken foot. He claimed official medical records would back up this claim. However, Justice Morgan outright rejected this medical defense. Agreed medical evidence only documented an abdominal ultrasound conducted months before the incident and a single orthopedic clinic visit in January 2023 – neither of which proved any physical incapacity in April 2023. More critically, in a police interview Menjivar did not contest, he explicitly admitted to standing in the shower with Q, a statement that directly contradicted his claim of being wheelchair-bound or otherwise unable to physically accost the child.
Even after throwing out Menjivar’s medical alibi, Justice Morgan was required to assess whether the prosecution’s evidence met the high legal bar of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After a granular review of the record, he concluded it did not, for three key reasons.
First, the entire prosecution case rested exclusively on Q’s first-hand account of the events inside the shower. No other witness – not even the uncle who arrived at the peak of the incident – observed any of the specific acts Q alleged: that Menjivar forced him to undress, touched himself in a sexual manner, stated his intent to rape, or physically restrained Q from leaving. The uncle only confirmed he found the two naked together, nothing more.
Second, Justice Morgan identified material, credibility-damaging inconsistencies between Q’s testimony and his uncle’s account. Q claimed he first stopped at his grandmother’s house, found it empty, and accepted Menjivar’s invitation into his home while searching for a missing pair of slippers. By contrast, the uncle testified he watched Q ride his bicycle directly to Menjivar’s home and enter without stopping at the grandmother’s residence at all. Q claimed Menjivar grabbed his arm to block his escape just as his uncle pulled back the curtain; the uncle saw no such physical restraint. Q also testified his uncle immediately recognized he was in danger and ordered him to leave, while the uncle recalled only asking both men what they were doing in the space.
Third, the court found evidence supporting a plausible alternative explanation: Q may have had a motive to embellish or fabricate the allegations to avoid punishment from his father after being found naked in a shower with an adult stranger.
In his written ruling, Justice Morgan emphasized that the acquittal does not equate to a finding that Menjivar did nothing wrong more broadly. He explicitly noted that being found naked in a bathroom with an underage minor is “a reprehensible and abhorrent act” that rightfully sparks public outrage. However, Menjivar was not charged with inappropriate conduct in general – he was charged with the specific criminal offense of attempted rape of a child, which requires specific proof of intent and actionable steps toward committing the crime. Given the inconsistencies in the evidence, the lack of corroboration for the core allegations, and the plausible alternative motive for Q’s account, the court could not reach the required degree of certainty to convict.
Justice Morgan acknowledged the verdict would be difficult for many members of the public to accept, given the undisputed fact of an adult man and a naked minor found together in a private shower. But he reaffirmed that the burden of proof in all Belizean criminal cases rests entirely with the prosecution, and when reasonable doubt remains, the law requires an acquittal. “The Accused is not charged with simply being in the bathroom with a child,” the ruling noted. “Criminal law requires more than disturbing circumstances to sustain a conviction – it requires proof of every element of the charged offense, beyond any reasonable doubt.”