Judgment rendered July 17, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,697-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
DOYLE SHANNON Appellant
Appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2021-CR-1740
Honorable Scott Leehy, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville
DOYLE SHANNON Pro Se
ROBERT S. TEW Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
KALEE MORGAN MOORE HOLLY A. CHAMBERS-JONES Assistant District Attorneys
Before ROBINSON, HUNTER, and ELLENDER, JJ. ELLENDER, J.
Doyle Shannon was convicted by jury of first degree rape and second
degree kidnapping, receiving a mandatory life sentence for rape and 40 years
for kidnapping. He appeals his convictions only, arguing the trial court
erred by sustaining multiple objections made during his cross-examination
of the victim. For the reasons expressed, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 8, 2021, BS1 was discharged from a rehabilitation center and
stayed overnight at the Studio 6 motel on Martin Luther King Drive in
Monroe. The next morning, after checking out and waiting most of the day
for her sister to come pick her up, she realized her phone needed to be
charged so she walked to the nearby Super 8 motel and asked the clerk to
borrow a charger. Shannon, who was in the lobby and overheard this
conversation, offered BS the use of his own charger, but only if she came to
his room. While she was charging her phone, Shannon’s behavior changed
drastically, so BS tried to get out of his room and began walking toward the
door. Shannon physically restrained BS from leaving declaring she was not
going anywhere, despite her attempts to resist. Shannon made BS drink
something that immediately caused her to feel intoxicated, pointed a gun at
her, and demanded she strip naked. Shannon proceeded to rape BS multiple
times over the course of the night and into the next morning.
When Shannon left the room to get breakfast, BS fled and called her
relatives, who contacted the police. Upon arrival, officers located BS in the
1 BS is referred to by her initials since she was the victim of a sex crime. La. R.S. 46:1844(W). parking lot and she informed them she had been raped repeatedly and held
against her will by a male armed with a handgun. Later, when Shannon
returned to the scene, BS identified him as her assailant and he was arrested.
Shannon was charged by bill of indictment with first degree rape,
second degree kidnapping, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and
false imprisonment. He was tried in February 2023, but, prior to jury
selection, the state dismissed the possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon and false imprisonment charges. Shannon was found guilty as charged
on both remaining counts, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without
benefits for first degree rape, and 40 years without benefits for second
degree kidnapping. The sentences were imposed concurrently.
DISCUSSION
At trial, the state sought to admit a videoed statement of BS taken
shortly after she had been raped. Prior to its admission, the state confirmed
BS had undergone a SANE evaluation before giving the statement. The
state first played a brief portion of the video before questioning BS, who
confirmed it was her and that she had given the statement shortly after being
raped. The video, which contained BS’s account of what happened, was
then admitted without objection and played in its entirety for the jury. At the
conclusion of the video, the state further questioned BS before she was
tendered. BS was cross-examined by defense counsel on issues related to
her testimony and about the recorded statement. Numerous objections were
lodged by the state during the cross-examination, with the trial court
sustaining some and overruling others.
In his sole assignment of error, Shannon urges the court erred in
sustaining repeated hearsay objections raised by the state. He contends that 2 this effectively prevented him from unfettered cross-examination relative to
her videoed statement and precluded the jury from having a full
understanding of the case. Even though no objection was made to the
admissibility of the videoed statement, Shannon asserts it should not have
been admitted because the statement was not made under oath and was not
subject to sufficient cross-examination. He concludes that the court’s
rulings prevented him from having a fair trial.
At the outset, we address the admissibility of BS’s videoed statement.
As the statement was consistent with her testimony and was one of initial
complaint of sexually assaultive behavior, it was not hearsay. La. C.E. art.
801(D)(1)(d). It was, therefore, admissible. State v. Hilliard, 52,652 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278 So. 3d 1065, writ denied, 19-01701 (La. 7/24/20),
299 So. 3d 68. To the extent that Shannon is now arguing BS’s statement
should not have been admitted, the argument lacks merit.
Moreover, a party must make a timely objection to evidence that a
party considers to be inadmissible and must state the specific ground for the
objection. La. C.E. art. 103(A)(1); La. C. Cr. P. art. 841. If no objection is
made in the trial court, any error committed therein is not preserved for
appellate review. State v. Lloyd, 48,914 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So.
3d 879, writ denied, 15-0307 (La. 11/30/15), 184 So. 3d 33; State v. Ford,
55,450 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24), 379 So. 3d 277. In short, lack of a
contemporaneous objection precludes any argument that the statement was
improperly admitted.
Shannon specifically contends that the trial court’s sustaining many of
the state’s objections prevented him from properly cross-examining BS and
inhibited the jury from having a full picture of the case. In response to 3 Shannon’s argument, the state points out BS was still thoroughly cross-
examined at trial regarding her recorded statement, as well as about several
additional matters relating to the case. The state also argues Shannon tested
the reliability of the recorded statement extensively during his cross-
examination of BS and he has provided no evidentiary or procedural basis
for his claim that the trial court erred in its rulings.
Under the Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to present a
defense. U.S. Const. amend. 6; La. Const. art. I, § 16; Washington v. Texas,
388 U.S. 14, 87 S. Ct. 1920, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1967); State v. Vigee, 518
So. 2d 501 (La. 1988). Additionally, due process affords the defendant the
right of full confrontation and cross-examination of the state’s witnesses.
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297
(1973); State v. Mosby, 595 So. 2d 1135 (La. 1992); State v. Smith, 54,489
(La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/22), 342 So. 3d 1108.
Shannon’s cross-examination of BS expands to 118 pages of the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered July 17, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,697-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
DOYLE SHANNON Appellant
Appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2021-CR-1740
Honorable Scott Leehy, Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville
DOYLE SHANNON Pro Se
ROBERT S. TEW Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
KALEE MORGAN MOORE HOLLY A. CHAMBERS-JONES Assistant District Attorneys
Before ROBINSON, HUNTER, and ELLENDER, JJ. ELLENDER, J.
Doyle Shannon was convicted by jury of first degree rape and second
degree kidnapping, receiving a mandatory life sentence for rape and 40 years
for kidnapping. He appeals his convictions only, arguing the trial court
erred by sustaining multiple objections made during his cross-examination
of the victim. For the reasons expressed, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 8, 2021, BS1 was discharged from a rehabilitation center and
stayed overnight at the Studio 6 motel on Martin Luther King Drive in
Monroe. The next morning, after checking out and waiting most of the day
for her sister to come pick her up, she realized her phone needed to be
charged so she walked to the nearby Super 8 motel and asked the clerk to
borrow a charger. Shannon, who was in the lobby and overheard this
conversation, offered BS the use of his own charger, but only if she came to
his room. While she was charging her phone, Shannon’s behavior changed
drastically, so BS tried to get out of his room and began walking toward the
door. Shannon physically restrained BS from leaving declaring she was not
going anywhere, despite her attempts to resist. Shannon made BS drink
something that immediately caused her to feel intoxicated, pointed a gun at
her, and demanded she strip naked. Shannon proceeded to rape BS multiple
times over the course of the night and into the next morning.
When Shannon left the room to get breakfast, BS fled and called her
relatives, who contacted the police. Upon arrival, officers located BS in the
1 BS is referred to by her initials since she was the victim of a sex crime. La. R.S. 46:1844(W). parking lot and she informed them she had been raped repeatedly and held
against her will by a male armed with a handgun. Later, when Shannon
returned to the scene, BS identified him as her assailant and he was arrested.
Shannon was charged by bill of indictment with first degree rape,
second degree kidnapping, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and
false imprisonment. He was tried in February 2023, but, prior to jury
selection, the state dismissed the possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon and false imprisonment charges. Shannon was found guilty as charged
on both remaining counts, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without
benefits for first degree rape, and 40 years without benefits for second
degree kidnapping. The sentences were imposed concurrently.
DISCUSSION
At trial, the state sought to admit a videoed statement of BS taken
shortly after she had been raped. Prior to its admission, the state confirmed
BS had undergone a SANE evaluation before giving the statement. The
state first played a brief portion of the video before questioning BS, who
confirmed it was her and that she had given the statement shortly after being
raped. The video, which contained BS’s account of what happened, was
then admitted without objection and played in its entirety for the jury. At the
conclusion of the video, the state further questioned BS before she was
tendered. BS was cross-examined by defense counsel on issues related to
her testimony and about the recorded statement. Numerous objections were
lodged by the state during the cross-examination, with the trial court
sustaining some and overruling others.
In his sole assignment of error, Shannon urges the court erred in
sustaining repeated hearsay objections raised by the state. He contends that 2 this effectively prevented him from unfettered cross-examination relative to
her videoed statement and precluded the jury from having a full
understanding of the case. Even though no objection was made to the
admissibility of the videoed statement, Shannon asserts it should not have
been admitted because the statement was not made under oath and was not
subject to sufficient cross-examination. He concludes that the court’s
rulings prevented him from having a fair trial.
At the outset, we address the admissibility of BS’s videoed statement.
As the statement was consistent with her testimony and was one of initial
complaint of sexually assaultive behavior, it was not hearsay. La. C.E. art.
801(D)(1)(d). It was, therefore, admissible. State v. Hilliard, 52,652 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278 So. 3d 1065, writ denied, 19-01701 (La. 7/24/20),
299 So. 3d 68. To the extent that Shannon is now arguing BS’s statement
should not have been admitted, the argument lacks merit.
Moreover, a party must make a timely objection to evidence that a
party considers to be inadmissible and must state the specific ground for the
objection. La. C.E. art. 103(A)(1); La. C. Cr. P. art. 841. If no objection is
made in the trial court, any error committed therein is not preserved for
appellate review. State v. Lloyd, 48,914 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So.
3d 879, writ denied, 15-0307 (La. 11/30/15), 184 So. 3d 33; State v. Ford,
55,450 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24), 379 So. 3d 277. In short, lack of a
contemporaneous objection precludes any argument that the statement was
improperly admitted.
Shannon specifically contends that the trial court’s sustaining many of
the state’s objections prevented him from properly cross-examining BS and
inhibited the jury from having a full picture of the case. In response to 3 Shannon’s argument, the state points out BS was still thoroughly cross-
examined at trial regarding her recorded statement, as well as about several
additional matters relating to the case. The state also argues Shannon tested
the reliability of the recorded statement extensively during his cross-
examination of BS and he has provided no evidentiary or procedural basis
for his claim that the trial court erred in its rulings.
Under the Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to present a
defense. U.S. Const. amend. 6; La. Const. art. I, § 16; Washington v. Texas,
388 U.S. 14, 87 S. Ct. 1920, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1967); State v. Vigee, 518
So. 2d 501 (La. 1988). Additionally, due process affords the defendant the
right of full confrontation and cross-examination of the state’s witnesses.
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297
(1973); State v. Mosby, 595 So. 2d 1135 (La. 1992); State v. Smith, 54,489
(La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/22), 342 So. 3d 1108.
Shannon’s cross-examination of BS expands to 118 pages of the
record. During the course of this cross-examination, 39 objections were
made by the state, 21 of which were either overruled or were directed by the
trial court to be rephrased. The other 18 objections were sustained by the
trial court for various reasons including, but not limited to: (1) the question
had already been asked and answered, (2) the question was a repeat or vague
question, (3) the question was irrelevant, or (4) the question was speculative.
In brief, Shannon refers to nine of these rulings but does not enunciate how
any of them were wrong.
Our review of this lengthy cross-examination reveals Shannon was
given ample opportunity for a sufficient and complete cross-examination of
BS. While we recognize the state did make many objections during the 4 cross-examination, we note the trial court handled each one on an
individualized basis, overruling more than half of them, and there was a
proper basis for the sustained objections. Notably, trial counsel’s repeated
references to the police report were properly excluded; police reports are
expressly excluded from the public records exception to the hearsay rule, La.
C.E. art. 803(8)(b)(i). State v. Moran, 47,804 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/13), 135
So. 3d 677, writ denied, 13-1052 (La. 11/15/13), 125 So. 3d 1101. In
sustaining many of the objections, the trial court specifically articulated its
reasoning for its rulings or directed Shannon to rephrase his question.
Further, on multiple occasions, the trial court allowed Shannon to restate his
question instead of sustaining the state’s objections.
At oral argument, Shannon also claimed the court’s rulings prevented
him from asking the best, most probing question to expose inconsistencies
between BS’s videoed statement and her testimony. While alternative
defense strategies may often appear superior in retrospect, we do not find the
court’s rulings denied Shannon’s constitutional right of confrontation and
cross-examination or prevented him from submitting a defense.
We find Shannon was given more than ample opportunity to fully
cross-examine BS and submit a defense to the jury. This assignment of error
is without merit.
ERROR PATENT
Our review of the record reveals the trial court did not order
Shannon’s sentences to be served at hard labor, although both offenses are
necessarily punishable at hard labor. La. R.S. 14:42; La. R.S. 14:44.1.
While the minutes reflect Shannon’s sentence for second degree kidnapping
is to be served at hard labor, the transcript of the sentencing hearing itself 5 reflects the trial court did not specify that either sentence have this
designation. The trial court’s failure to specifically state on the record
Shannon’s sentences were to be served at hard labor renders the sentences
illegally lenient. State v. Martinez, 52,882 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278
So. 3d 467; State v. Thomas, 52,617 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/22/19), 272 So. 3d
999, writ denied, 19-01045 (La. 2/10/20), 292 So. 3d 61. However, because
both first degree rape and second degree kidnapping require any sentence to
be served at hard labor, the error is self-correcting. Id. Consequently, both
of Shannon’s sentences shall be served at hard labor.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed, we affirm Doyle Shannon’s convictions
and sentences, and note both sentences shall be served at hard labor.
AFFIRMED.