State of Louisiana v. Jesse Lee Silas, II

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: September 21, 2022
• Docket: 54,582-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered September 21, 2022. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 54,582-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JESSE LEE SILAS, II Appellant

Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 20-CR-31241

Honorable Nicholas E. Gasper, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Edward K. Bauman

JESSE LEE SILAS, II Pro Se

CHARLES B. ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

LEA R. HALL, JR. LISA D. LOBRANO Assistant District Attorneys

Before THOMPSON, ROBINSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ. THOMPSON, J.

Jesse Lee Silas, II, appeals his conviction for first degree rape, family

member victim under thirteen, and sentence to life imprisonment at hard

labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Silas’ appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an

Anders1 brief, asserting there are no nonfrivolous issues upon which to base

an appeal. In a pro se brief, Silas argues that the State failed to present

sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and that the district court

erred in allowing the State’s expert in child sexual abuse to testify. For the

reasons provided in greater detail below, appellate counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted, Silas’ conviction and sentence are affirmed, and the

case is remanded to the trial court with instructions.

FACTS

On December 2, 2020, Jesse Lee Silas, II, was charged by bill of

indictment with first degree rape of his daughter, E.S. (DOB 3/30/09), by

having sexual intercourse with her without her consent because she was

under the age of 13, in violation of La. R.S. 14:42(A)(4). Prior to trial,

defense counsel objected to the State’s withdrawal of a prior plea offer. The

trial court concluded that the plea offer itself expressly provided that it could

be withdrawn at any time. Additionally, the trial court admitted a videotape

of an incriminating statement Silas made to Lt. Angela Bandy during his

interview at the police station prior to his arrest. The trial court determined

Silas’ statement was freely and voluntarily given.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). On June 21, 2021, the jury trial began. Ni.S., Silas’ oldest daughter,

was 14 years old at the time of the trial. She testified that her mother,

Rachel Silas, was absent most of the time, because she was having an affair

with Silas’ father, her paternal grandfather. Silas worked out of town for

two weeks on, one week off. She testified that when she was four years old,

Silas started sexually abusing her during the periods he was off work and at

home. Silas also began abusing her younger sister, Na.S., who was three

years old at the time. Ni.S. testified that her father would bring her and

Na.S. to his bedroom, make them strip, and watch him touch himself. The

abuse progressed from there; Silas would make the girls touch him, first with

their hands and then with their mouths. Silas then started making the girls

have anal sex with them, and eventually vaginal sex. Over time, their

younger sister, E.S., was also brought into these abusive encounters. Silas

forced his three daughters to perform sex acts, and watch each other

participate in sex acts with him. Ni.S. testified that when Silas penetrated

E.S. anally, she cried. Ni.S. also testified that when Silas was home from

work, he had sex with at least one of the girls every day.

Ni.S. testified that one Sunday, she and her three sisters went to

church with her paternal grandmother. While listening to a sermon about

how God knew everything, Ni.S. became emotional and began to cry. Her

grandmother asked her several questions to determine what was wrong.

When her grandmother asked if her father had done anything to her, Ni.S.

cried harder, which led her grandmother to suspect something was wrong.

The next day, her grandmother called the police. Ni.S. gave a statement at

the Gingerbread House and stated that she had not talked about the abuse

with her sisters since the incident at church. 2 E.S., who was 12 years old at the trial, testified regarding an incident

two weeks before her father was arrested. Everyone else in the house was

asleep, and she and Silas were on the couch watching television. E.S.

testified that her father tried to roll her over to have sex, and she refused.

E.S. testified that Silas would make her put her mouth on his “private part”

and then he would put his “private part” in her “rear end.” E.S. testified that

the abuse happened every time her father was home.

Lt. Angela Bandy of the DeSoto Parish Sheriff’s Office testified that

she observed the girls’ interviews at the Gingerbread House. Lt. Bandy

testified that Silas gave a voluntary, videotaped statement after she read his

Miranda rights to him. Once Silas admitted during his interview that he had

put his penis in his daughter’s mouth, he was not free to leave the police

station. Silas expressed to her that he was abused as a child by a family

member. Upon the conclusion of the interview, Silas was arrested. Lt.

Bandy testified that the children’s Gingerbread House interviews revealed

they did not hate their father, but they just wanted the abuse to stop.

Dr. Jennifer Olson Rodrigues, a pediatrician at the Cara Center,

conducted physical examinations of all three girls. One reported pain in her

bottom, one reported pain during urination, and one reported a stomach

ache. Dr. Rodrigues testified that the physical symptoms the girls disclosed

were consistent with sexual abuse in children. Dr. Rodrigues testified that

the girls had normal physical exams, but this was not uncommon with abuse

victims, especially when they are put through a grooming process.

On June 23, 2021, after less than 20 minutes of deliberation, the jury

returned a unanimous verdict of guilty as charged. On December 15, 2021,

3 Silas was sentenced to life in prison at hard labor, without benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Silas’ appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief asserting that, after a thorough review of the entire record, no

nonfrivolous issues remained for appeal. See Anders, supra; State v. Jyles,

96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So. 2d 241; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.

04/28/95), 653 So. 2d 1176; State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 (La. App. 4

Cir. 1990). Appellate counsel’s brief outlines the procedural history of the

case, provides a statement of the facts, and contains a detailed and

reviewable assessment for both Silas and this Court regarding whether the

appeal is worth pursuing.

In a pro se brief, Silas raises two assignments of error.

Assignment of Error No. 1: Sufficiency of Evidence

Silas argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to

support the jury’s verdict. Specifically, Silas contends there was no physical

evidence to show the victim was sexually abused, and there was no evidence

that proved there was any form of sexual abuse within Silas’ home. Silas

contends that his wife was having an extramarital affair with her father-in-

law, which created motive for his wife to have the children make up stories

about their father. Further, Silas contends that the testimony given by the

victims was inconsistent, uncorroborated, and did not prove that any crime

occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence

claim is whether, after viewing the case in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements 4 of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,

99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). This standard, now legislatively

embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with

a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the

fact finder. State v. Steines, 51,698 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/15/17), 245 So. 3d

224, writ denied, 17-2174 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So. 3d 797.

The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or

reweigh the evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d

442; State v. Dale, 50,195 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 180 So. 3d 528, writ

denied, 15-2291 (La. 4/4/16), 190 So. 3d 1203. A reviewing court affords

great deference to a trial court’s decision to accept or reject the testimony of

a witness in whole or in part. State v. Steines, supra. Thus, this court is

charged with examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution and determining whether any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id. In the absence of internal contradictions or irreconcilable conflict with

physical evidence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient support for a

requisite factual conclusion if that witness is believed by the trier of fact.

State v. Jones, 31,613 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/1/99), 733 So. 2d 127, writ denied,

99-1185 (La. 10/1/99), 748 So. 2d 434.

La. R.S. 14:42 provides in part:

(A) First degree rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty- five years of age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances:

(4) When the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Lack of knowledge of the victim's age shall not be a defense. …. 5 (D) (1) Whoever commits the crime of first degree rape shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

The State contends that Silas makes no credible argument regarding

the sufficiency of the evidence. We agree. Silas’ argument regarding his

wife and her father-in-law was known at the trial, and the jury nonetheless

convicted. The testimony of the victim alone is sufficient support for the

fact finder to conclude that the elements of first degree rape were satisfied.

In this case, the victim’s testimony was corroborated by her sister’s

testimony at trial. Further, Silas admitted to sexually abusing his daughters

during his interview with Lt. Bandy. Considering the facts in a light most

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could conclude that

Silas’ conduct satisfied the elements necessary for a conviction of first

degree rape. For the reasons outlined above, this assignment of error lacks

merit.

Assignment of Error No. 2: The district court erred in allowing Dr. Jennifer Olson Rodrigues to testify as an expert witness.

Silas next argues that the district court erred in allowing Dr. Jennifer

Olson Rodrigues to testify as an expert witness in the field of child sexual

abuse. Silas argues that her testimony constituted “junk science” and unduly

bolstered the victim’s testimony, causing the jury to give the victim’s

testimony more weight than it would have otherwise received. In his brief,

Silas seems to challenge Dr. Rodrigues’ methods and their scientific

validity, and claims her testimony does not pass the Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)

threshold test for scientific validity. In response, the State contends that Dr.

Rodrigues’ testimony did not speculate on the credibility of any witness, and 6 she gave no psychological testimony. The State contends that Dr. Rodrigues

only testified regarding the physical effects of sexual abuse of children. The

record reveals that no contemporaneous objection was made to Dr.

Rodrigues’ testimony at trial, nor was a pretrial motion in limine filed for the

purpose of limiting such testimony

The factual basis for an expert opinion determines the credibility of

the testimony. It is the responsibility of the opposing party to explore the

factual basis for the opinion and thus, determine its reliability. Leard v.

Schenker, 06-1116 (La. 6/16/06), 931 So. 2d 355. Thus, the failure to raise

an objection to the admissibility and reliability of expert testimony

constitutes a waiver of such an objection. A contemporaneous objection to

the disputed evidence must be entered on the trial record in order to preserve

the objection for appellate review. La. C.E. art. 103(A)(1); Evans v. Terrell,

27,615 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/6/95), 665 So. 2d 648, writ denied, 96-0387 (La.

5/3/96), 672 So. 2d 695. Furthermore, when the objecting party fails to

request an evidentiary “gatekeeping” hearing under the rationale of Daubert,

his objections to the admissibility of an expert witness’ testimony under

Daubert are not preserved for appeal. Brown v. Schwegmann, 05-0830 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 4/25/07), 958 So. 2d 721, writ denied, 07-1094 (La. 9/21/07),

964 So. 2d 333.

Because a contemporaneous objection was not entered on the trial

record, Silas’ objection to Dr. Rodrigues’ expert testimony was not

preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, this assignment of error also

lacks merit.

7 ERROR PATENT

In accordance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 920, the record has been

reviewed for errors patent. First degree rape is a sex offense as defined by

La. R.S. 15:541, and La. R.S. 15:542 provides mandatory registration

requirements for sex offenders. La. R.S. 15:543(A) provides:

The court shall provide written notification to any person convicted of a sex offense and a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor of the registration requirements and the notification requirements of this Chapter. For purposes of this Subsection, the court shall use the form contained in R.S. 15:543.1 and shall provide a copy of the registration and notification statutes to the offender. Such notice shall be included on any guilty plea forms and judgment and sentence forms provided to the defendant, and an entry shall be made in the court minutes stating that the written notification was provided to such offenders.

The record does not show that the trial court provided Silas with oral or

written notice of his obligation to register as a sex offender. Therefore, we

remand this case to the trial court to provide the appropriate written notice to

Silas of the sex offender registration requirements, and to confirm the

written notification on the record. State v. Barrett, 51,921 (La. App. 2 Cir.

04/11/18), 247 So. 3d 164; State v. Williams, 49,249 (La. App. 2 Cir.

10/01/14), 149 So. 3d 462, writ denied, 14-2130 (La. 05/22/15), 173 So. 3d

1167; State v. Hough, 47,308 (La. App. 2 Cir. 08/01/12), 103 So. 3d 477,

writ denied, 12-1936 (La. 03/08/13), 109 So. 3d 357.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted, Jesse Lee Silas, II’s, conviction and sentence are affirmed, and the

case is remanded for the trial court to provide Silas with written notice of the

sex offender registration requirements with confirmation thereof on the

record. 8 MOTION GRANTED, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

AFFIRMED, and CASE REMANDED.