j o STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2019 KA 1612
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
TERANCE ROSHELL DAWSON
NOV 17 2020 JUDGMENT RENDERED:
Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge • State of Louisiana Docket Number 04- 16- 0206 • Section I
The Honorable Fred T. Crifasi, Judge Presiding
Hillar C. Moore, III ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Stacy L. Wright Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Jane L. Beebe ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT New Orleans, Louisiana DEFENDANT— Terance Roshell Dawson
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH, AND CHUTZ, JJ. WELCH, J.
The State of Louisiana charged the defendant, Terance Roshell Dawson, by
bill of indictment with two counts of aggravated rape' ( counts one and four),
violations of La. R.S. 14: 42; oral sexual battery ( count two), a violation of La. R.S.
14: 43. 3; sexual battery ( count three), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 43. 1; and indecent
behavior with a juvenile ( count five) a violation of La. R.S. 14: 81. Defendant pled
not guilty. After a trial by jury, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged on
all counts by unanimous verdicts. For counts one and two, the trial court imposed
concurrent terms of life and twenty- five years imprisonment at hard labor
respectively; for counts three and four, the court imposed concurrent terms of
twenty- five years and life imprisonment at hard labor respectively; and for count
five, the court imposed a term of fifteen years imprisonment at hard labor. The
trial court ordered the sentences for counts three and four to run consecutively to
counts one and two. The trial court ordered the sentence for count five to be
served consecutively to the sentences on the other four counts. The trial court
ordered all sentences to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or
suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals. For the following reasons, we
affirm the defendant' s convictions and sentences.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
From about the age of five, A.J.' lived with her mother, brother, and
defendant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A.J. thought of defendant as a step -father or
father figure." She also thought of defendant' s daughter, A.A., as a little sister.
When A.J. was about six or seven years old, defendant began to expose himself to
her and show her pornographic videos. Defendant would also undress A.J. and put
his mouth on her genitals, sometimes while using chocolate syrup. On other
1 Pursuant to the amendment of La. R.S. 14: 42 by 2015 La. Acts No. 256, § 1 ( eff. Aug. 1, 2015), aggravated rape is now referred to as first degree rape. See La. R.S. 14: 42( E).
2 In accordance with La. R.S. 46: 1844( W), the victims' initials will be used.
2 occasions, he would make A.J. perform oral sex on him, again while using
chocolate syrup.
Soon thereafter, defendant began inserting his penis into A.J.' s vagina. The
first time was in her bedroom, and though she tried to fight him, he was larger and
had so much control[.]" A.J. testified that defendant ejaculated after that first
experience, and indicated he ejaculated during all of their encounters. She also
explained that defendant would give her whatever she wanted, like ice cream,
chicken, or money, in exchange for sexual contact. A.J. said the abuse occurred
repeatedly, and would happen in her bedroom, her mother' s bedroom, empty
houses, his truck, or his car. Defendant would abuse her while her mother was out
for dialysis appointments, three times a week. A.J. testified that the abuse
continued until she was about thirteen years old. She described to the jury the
appearance of a birthmark on defendant' s penis and inner thigh, and that
sometimes defendant would use baby oil to aid in penetrating her. A.A. is
defendant' s daughter. Around the age of seven or eight, she began spending some
weekends with defendant at his apartment, where A.J. and her mother also lived.'
When A.A. was eight years old, defendant began touching her " private areas" and
would make her touch his. Later, defendant would insert his fingers into A.A.' s
vagina. Eventually, defendant' s touching turned into penetrative sexual
intercourse. The first time occurred in the bedroom defendant shared with A.J.' s
mother, when no one else was at home. He called her into his room and on the TV
was playing a pornographic video. Defendant then removed his clothes and told
her to remove her clothes. After the intercourse stopped, defendant made A.A.
take a bath while he washed the blood- stained sheets. He told A.A. that " it was a
daddy -daughter secret."
A.A. testified that defendant would also put his mouth on her genitals, and
3 Although A.A. testified at trial that the defendant' s apartment was located in Baker, Louisiana, the apartment was actually located within the Scotland Square Apartments in Baton Rouge.
C make her put her mouth on his. Following the incidents of abuse, defendant would
take A.A. to get ice cream or go shopping. The abuse continued in defendant' s car
and truck, the home of defendant' s mother, and later at the home of defendant' s
next girlfriend, and a motel. A.A. explained defendant would wear condoms, and
sometimes used baby oil. Defendant explained to A.A. that the abuse was his way
of showing his love for her. The abuse stopped by the time A.A. was ten years old.
A.A. described defendant as having a birthmark on the inside of his thigh.
L. S. lived with her mother and brother in a Baton Rouge apartment complex
when she was nine years old. She knew defendant as her mother' s friend. One
evening in July 2011, defendant was present at the apartment with L. S. and her
brother while their mother went out for the night. L.S. went with defendant to a
convenience store to purchase some candy and chips. On the way home, defendant
asked L. S. what she was " going to do ... to keep them chips." He then asked L.S.
to perform oral sex on him. L. S. got out of the car and ran home, where she told
her brother what happened. A neighbor called her mother, who came home. L. S.
did not see defendant at her apartment again.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #1: MOTION TO QUASH'
In his first assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred when
it denied his pretrial motion to quash the indictment where the State flaunted its
power in refiling an indictment in order to evade time limitations and prejudice
defendant. Defendant asserts he was prejudiced when he was subjected to
additional charges and more victims against which he had to mount a defense.
Defendant argues the effect of the refiling of charges was to permit the State to
institute trial over five years after his original indictment. Defendant does not
expressly claim a speedy trial violation, only that the State' s " gamesmanship" was
calculated to prejudice him with the new indictment and dismissal of the initial
The Honorable Anthony J. Marabella, Jr., presided over the hearing and ruled on the motion to quash that is the subject of defendant' s first assignment of error.
rd prosecution. Defendant goes on to argue that " the specific prejudice in this case
was [ defendant] now had to defend himself against two other alleged victims and
different claims of sexual abuse."
The State argues it dismissed and reinstituted charges " with the most noble
of intentions of seeking justice for these very young victims[.]" The State notes
defendant was unable to show specific prejudice below resulting from a lack of
witnesses or loss of evidence. The State asserts defendant is claiming for the first
time on appeal that he was prejudiced by having to defend against additional
claims by additional victims.
According to the trial court' s written ruling on defendant' s motion to quash,
defendant was charged by bill of information on December 9, 2013 with one count
of sexual battery and one count of oral sexual battery upon victim A.J. On August
13, 2015, the State amended defendant' s original bill of information to charge him
with two counts of sexual battery and three counts of oral sexual battery, all
involving A.J. An August 24, 2015 trial date was reset on defendant' s motion.
Following re -arraignment on the amended charges, defendant' s trial was set for
April 4, 2016.
On April 4, 2016, the State moved for a continuance due to a prosecutor
being sick. The prosecutor presented the court with a doctor' s note. Defendant
objected to the continuance, claiming it was a delay tactic in order to keep
defendant in custody while the State continued with pursuing another grand jury
indictment. The State did not know when it would present evidence for additional
charges to the grand jury, but acknowledged it was forthcoming because defendant
had a new arrest. The trial court granted the State' s continuance and set trial for
April 18, 2016; however, it did so over the State' s objection that its expert
witnesses would not be available on April 18th. On April 7, 2016, the State
obtained the instant five -count indictment against defendant for crimes alleged to
5 have been committed against A.J., A.A., and L. S.
On April 18, 2016, the State dismissed the amended bill of information. In
May 2016, defendant filed a motion to quash the first two counts of the new
indictment that were related to A.J. Following a hearing, the trial court issued a
written ruling denying the motion to quash on March 17, 2017. While it found the
State had " flaunted" its prosecutorial power, it specifically held defendant had not
established " any significant disadvantage or specific prejudice" and, therefore, was
not entitled to relief. Defendant challenged the ruling in this court, but his writ
application was denied. State v. Dawson, 2017- 0527 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 7/ 7/ 17),
2017 WL 2889291 ( unpublished), writ not considered, 2017- 1382 ( La. 11/ 6/ 17),
229 So. 3d 474.
As an initial matter, the district attorney' s authority over criminal
prosecutions in his or her district is well established. See La. Const. art. V, §
26( B); La. C. Cr.P. art. 61. The district attorney has complete charge and control of
every criminal prosecution instituted or pending in the district and determines
whom, when, and how a defendant shall be prosecuted. La. C. Cr.P. art. 61. The
district attorney has the power and discretion to dismiss an indictment or a count in
an indictment, without leave of court. See La. C. Cr.P. art. 691. The dismissal of a
prosecution rests entirely within the discretion of the prosecuting attorney. State
v. Papizan, 2017- 0028 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 11/ 2/ 17), 256 So. 3d 1091, 1095, writ
denied, 2017- 2028 ( La. 10/ 29/ 18), 255 So. 3d 572.
Because the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands
that deference be given to a trial court' s discretionary decisions, an appellate court
is allowed to reverse a trial court judgment on a motion to quash only if that
finding represents an abuse of the trial court' s discretion. State v. Love, 2000-
3347 ( La. 5/ 23/ 03), 847 So. 2d 1198, 1206. However, a trial court' s legal findings
are subject to a de novo standard of review. See State v. Smith, 99- 0606 ( La. 7/ 6/ 00), 766 So. 2d 501, 504. Barring extraordinary circumstances, courts should
be reluctant to rule that a defendant has been denied a speedy trial. State v.
Moore, 2008- 1323 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 12/ 23/ 08), 2008 WL 5377809 ( unpublished),
at * 3.
To show a violation of a defendant' s due process rights, it is not sufficient to
show that the State dismissed a prosecution merely because it believed the
dismissal was in the State' s best interest. The record must establish the State
dismissed the prosecution " for the purpose of imposing a significant disadvantage
on defendant, and, as a result, defendant' s right to a fair trial was substantially
prejudiced. Papizan, 256 So. 3d at 1098. Because of the severe consequences of a
court dismissing a prosecution that is neither time-barred nor precluded by the
right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, the Louisiana Supreme Court
has articulated that a motion to quash should be granted only when the State
exercises its authority in such a way that it not only disrupts the trial court
proceedings or challenges the court' s authority to manage its docket, but also
significantly disadvantages the defense at any forthcoming trial." State v. King,
2010- 2638 ( La. 5/ 6/ 11), 60 So. 3d 615, 619 (per curiam).
A court' s resolution of motions to quash in cases where the district attorney
enters a nolle prosequi and later reinstitutes charges should be decided on a case-
by-case basis. See Love, 847 So. 2d at 1209. To meet the burden, a defendant
must prove the State flaunted its authority " for reasons that show that [ it] wants to
favor the State at the expense of the defendant, such as putting the defendant at risk
of losing witnesses[.]" State v. Batiste, 2005- 1571 ( La. 10/ 17/ 06), 939 So. 2d
1245, 1249. " Short of [a] statutory tolling," a showing of "specific prejudice" to
the defense is essential. See King, 60 So. 3d at 619. Thus, where there is no
showing the State is flaunting its authority at the expense of a defendant in entering
a nolle prosequi and reinstituting charges, a defendant is not entitled to relief. See,
7 f.g., King, 60 So. 3d at 618- 19 ( no prejudice found where State entered nolle
prosequi when bank failed to comply with records subpoena, and there was no
record support for " an inference that the [ S] tate delayed matters to wear down the
defendant[.]"); Batiste, 939 So. 2d at 1249- 50 ( legitimate nolle prosequi where
victim unsure about continuing forward with case, and " record reveals no
intentional delay on the State' s part for the purpose of gaining a tactical
advantage."); Love, 847 So. 2d at 1202 ( proper use of nolle prosequi due to illness
of State' s witness). Cf. State v. Reimonenq, 2019- 0367 ( La. 10/ 22/ 19), 286 So.
3d 412, 417 ( prejudice shown where nolle prosequi filed in order to gain
continuance and evade trial court' s evidentiary ruling without having to seek
appellate review); Papizan, 256 So. 3d at 1099 ( trial court' s grant of motion to
quash upheld where defendant claimed he would have to " incur additional attorney
fees to defend the new prosecution," could not " afford to retain a jury consultant
for a second trial[,]" and that his voir dire will not be as successful because " the
prosecution ` knows what to expect."').
Based on the record before us, we cannot say the trial court erred in finding
the State had " flaunted" its authority by indicting defendant on new charges
involving multiple victims in order to grant itself a continuance where the trial
court would not. However, the trial court additionally found that defendant failed
to allege any specific prejudice or disadvantage, as required by King for a motion
to quash to be granted. The trial court noted that defendant argued he was
generally prejudiced by the passage of time and the fading memories of potential
witnesses.
We agree that, in the arguments made below, defendant failed to set forth
what evidence might have been lost, or the specific witnesses whose memories
would be rendered unreliable by the passage of time. See State v. Johnson, 2019-
1391 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 5/ 11/ 20), So -3d , 2020 WL 2393892, at * 6 trial court erred in granting motion to quash where " defendant offered no
argument of prejudice beyond the allegation that a number of unnamed witnesses
were no longer available.").
On appeal, defendant does provide something closer to specificity, arguing
that it is harder to defend against the allegations of three victims as opposed to the
original single victim. Though defendant makes the general allegation that his
defense has been rendered more difficult by the number and nature of the new
charges, such allegation is insufficient to establish " specific prejudice." See, f.&.,
State v. Martin, 2013- 0628 ( La. App. 0 Cir. 5/ 28/ 14), 141 So. 3d 933, 939- 40,
writ denied, 2014- 1250 ( La. 1/ 23/ 15), 159 So. 3d 1056 ( inclusion of six additional
offenses in reinstated prosecution following a nolle prosequi did not prejudice
defendant). Cf. State v. Hayes, 2010- 1538 ( La. App. 4" Cir. 9/ 1/ 11), 75 So. 3d 8,
16, writ denied, 2011- 2144 ( La. 3/ 2/ 12), 83 So. 3d 1043 ( observing that when a
trial judge finds the only prejudice to result from the State' s tactics is undue
continued pretrial incarceration, the judge ought to first consider a less drastic
remedy than dismissal, such as reducing the amount of bail).
From the record before us, it appears that the additional charges brought
against defendant with the new indictment were a product of new information and
a continuing investigation, and were not intended to deny defendant due process.
Prosecuting alleged crimes obviously disadvantages anyone charged with them;
however, defendant fails to articulate specific prejudice in his ability to present a
defense to the additional charges. In sum, there is no indication that the State
sought a tactical advantage over defendant, nor is there an indication that the State
delayed matters in order to prejudice defendant. This claim is without merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR # 2: IMPROPER JOINDER
In his second assignment of error, defendant argues he was prejudiced when
the trial court denied his motion to sever counts one and two from counts three,
N four, and five. Specifically, defendant contends that the State' s inclusion of all
three victims in one indictment prejudiced him, and " compiling counts with no
similarity and allegedly encompassing an entire decade was inherently unfair and
prejudicial[.]"
The State responds that the similarities between the offenses were " both
striking and numerous," and, therefore, joinder was appropriate. The State claims
there was no juror confusion with the counts and that they were able to " segregate
the various charges and evidence." Finally, the State contends that even if the
charges were improperly joined, such joinder was harmless.
Defendant filed a motion to sever the charges involving three victims, whose
combined five charges against defendant were joined in a single indictment.
According to the indictment, defendant committed aggravated rape and oral sexual
battery against A.J. between January 1, 2004 and April 17, 2011, and April 18,
2011 and April 30, 2011, respectively. Additionally, defendant was alleged to
have committed sexual battery and aggravated rape against A.A. between January
10, 2009 and June 6, 2013, and January 10, 2011 and June 6, 2013, respectively.
Finally, defendant was alleged to have committed indecent behavior with a
juvenile, L. S., on July 13, 2011. The trial court denied the motion on July 19,
2018.
Defendant in brief argues the counts should have been severed because they
were separate incidents occurring on separate dates. According to defendant, the
facts were separate and distinct, there was no common scheme, and the offenses
against the three victims encompass three different modus operandi. find no
reason to disturb the trial court' s ruling.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 493 states:
Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or
10 misdemeanors, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan; provided that the
offenses joined must be triable by the same mode of trial.
Additionally, La. C. Cr.P. art. 493. 2 provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 493, offenses in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor may be charged in the same indictment or
information with offenses in which the punishment may be confinement at hard labor, provided that the joined offenses are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or
transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. Cases so joined shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict.
Finally, La. C. Cr.P. art. 495. 1 establishes:
If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses in an indictment or bill of
information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order separate trials, grant a severance of offenses, or provide whatever other reliefjustice requires.
Here, all of the offenses with which defendant was charged require trial by a
twelve -member jury, as they are all necessarily punishable by hard labor. La. R. S.
14: 42; La. R.S. 14: 43. 1( C)( 2); La. R.S. 14: 43. 3( C)( 2); La. R.S. 14: 81( H)(2); La.
C. Cr.P. art. 782( A).
In determining whether joinder will be prejudicial, the court should consider
whether: 1) the jury would be confused by the various counts; 2) the jury would be
able to segregate the various charges and evidence; 3) the defendant would be
confounded in presenting his various defenses; 4) the crimes charged would be
used by the jury to infer a criminal disposition; and 5) especially considering the
nature of the charges, the charging of several crimes would make the jury hostile.
State v. Vaughn, 2018- 0344 ( La. App. 1" Cir. 9/ 24/ 18), 259 So. 3d 1048, 1059,
rev' d in part on otherrog unds, 2018- 01750 ( La. 11/ 25/ 19), 283 So. 3d 494 ( citing
State v. Deruise, 98- 0541 ( La. 4/ 3/ 01), 802 So. 2d 1224, 1232, cert. denied, 534
11 U.S. 926, 122 S. Ct. 283, 151 L. Ed. 2d 208 ( 2001)). A severance need not be
granted if the prejudice can effectively be avoided by other safeguards. In many
instances, the trial judge can mitigate any prejudice resulting from joinder of
offenses by providing clear instructions to the jury. The State can further curtail
any prejudice with an orderly presentation of evidence. State v. Malbrough,
2013- 2190 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 25/ 14), 2014 WL 3843879, at * 3 ( unpublished).
A defendant in any case bears a heavy burden of proof when alleging
prejudicial joinder of offenses as grounds for a motion to sever; factual, rather than
conclusory, allegations are required. In ruling on such a motion, the trial court
must weigh the possibility of prejudice to defendant against the important
considerations of economical and expedient use ofjudicial resources. An appellate
court will not reverse the trial court' s ruling denying a motion for severance absent
a clear showing of prejudice. State v. Johnson, 2011- 1841 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
5/ 14/ 12), 2012 WL 1744469, at * 6 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2012- 1323 ( La.
11/ 21/ 12), 102 So. 3d 53 ( citing State v. Morris, 99- 3075 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
11/ 3/ 00), 770 So. 2d 908, 913- 14, writ denied, 2000- 3293 ( La. 10/ 12/ 01), 799 So.
2d 496, cert. denied, 535 U. S. 934, 122 S. Ct. 1311, 152 L. Ed. 2d 220 ( 2002)).
The charges were properly joined. While the offenses were committed on
separate dates and involved different victims, they were of a similar character. All
three victims were young girls between the ages of six and thirteen at the time of
the abuse. The State presented its case in a logical fashion and in such a manner as
to keep the evidence pertaining to each count and each victim separate and distinct.
It appears the jury was clearly able to segregate the various counts as the trial court
specifically charged the jury separately as to each offense and corresponding
victim. It is improbable that the jury was confused.
Moreover, evidence of the joined offenses would have been admissible other
crimes evidence under La. C. E. art. 412. 2 in severed trials of the related offenses to
12 show defendant' s lustful disposition toward young children. See State v.
Carruth, 2017- 0341 ( La. App. Pt Cir. 11/ 1/ 17), 2017 WL 4974608, at * 7
unpublished); State v. Friday, 2010- 2309 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 17/ 11), 73 So. 3d
913, 929, writ denied, 2011- 1456 ( La. 4/ 20/ 12), 85 So. 3d 1258; State v.
Dickinson, 370 So. 2d 557, 559- 60 ( La. 1979) ( trial court' s denial of a motion to
sever upheld in case involving kidnapping -attempted rape of one victim and then, a
year later, kidnapping -attempted rape of another victim); State v. Mitchell, 356
So. 2d 974, 978- 80 ( La.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 926, 99 S. Ct. 310, 58 L. Ed. 2d
319 ( 1978) ( trial court' s denial of motion to sever upheld in case involving three
rape victims over a five-month period); State v. Roca, 2003- 1076 ( La. App. 5th
Cir. 1/ 13/ 04), 866 So. 2d 867, 872- 74, writ denied, 2004- 0583 ( La. 7/ 2/ 04), 877
So. 2d 143. See also Deruise, 802 So. 2d at 1231- 33 ( fact that evidence of one
charge would not be admissible under State v. Prieur, 277 So. 2d 126 ( La. 1973),
in a separate trial on the joined offense, does not per se prevent the joinder and
single trial of both crimes if the joinder is otherwise permissible); State v.
Murphy, 2016- 0901 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 10/ 28/ 16), 206 So. 3d 219, 227.
Here, evidence of the aggravated rape and sexual battery of A.J. would have
been admissible as other crimes evidence at a trial for the aggravated rape and oral
sexual battery of A.A. and the indecent behavior of L. S. Carruth, 2017 WL
4974608, at * 7 ( while committed on different dates and on different victims,
incidents were of a similar character where both victims were female escorts who
posted online ads, both were handcuffed by defendant almost immediately after
meeting him, and driven by defendant to a secluded area); State v. H.A., Sr.,
2010- 95 ( La. App. 3r1 Cir. 10/ 6/ 10), 47 So. 3d 34, 37, 41- 43 ( trial court' s denial of
motion to sever upheld where charges of aggravated incest and molestation of a
juvenile occurred between eight and fifteen years apart and committed against
different victims). As noted above, in all five offenses, the three victims were
13 young girls between the ages of six and thirteen years old. In all of the offenses
defendant knew the victims well, defendant was regularly in their homes,
defendant waited until he was alone with the victims, and defendant groomed the
victims with offers of ice cream and/ or food. In the aggravated rapes of A.J. and
A.A., defendant first started with touching their genitals, progressed to oral sex,
and finally penetrated them, sometimes with the aid of baby oil. He perpetrated
the crimes in their homes and his vehicles, and showed both girls pornographic
videos. Both A.J. and A.A. described defendant as having a birthmark on his inner
thigh. Therefore, the evidence of the offenses committed against any of the
victims could have been introduced at the trials of the offenses committed against
the other victims. Though defendant claims the contrary in his brief on appeal, the
similarities in the victims and the methods defendant used to groom and molest the
victims are exceedingly clear. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying defendant' s motion to sever. This assignment of error is
without merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #3: LUSTFUL DISPOSITION EVIDENCE
In his final assignment of error, defendant claims the trial court erred when it
permitted the State to introduce evidence of a 1991 juvenile conviction in
Mississippi for sexual battery of a victim under the age of 14. Defendant argues
the offense to which defendant pled guilty is not similar in " time, location, or
modus [ operandi,]" " was purely prejudicial," and was introduced to " portray
defendant] as a bad person[.]" Defendant concludes that the inclusion of this
evidence was not harmless, as it unfairly bolstered the State' s allegation that
defendant is a chronic sexual predator.
The State responds that the introduction of the Mississippi prosecution was
supported by La. C. E. art. 412.2( A), and that the trial court did not err in admitting
it into evidence. It also observes defendant' s arguments citing La. C.E. art. 404( B)
14 are not relevant to the claim made. Further, even assuming any error, the State
argues the admission was ultimately harmless in light of the other evidence
presented at trial.
Before trial, the State filed notice that it intended to introduce " lustful
disposition" evidence in the form of a 1991 guilty plea where defendant pled guilty
to sexual battery after having been charged with rape. The trial court denied
defendant' s objection to its admission. The indictment and guilty plea were
admitted into evidence, over defendant' s objection.
Generally, courts may not admit evidence of other crimes or bad acts to
show defendant is a man of bad character who has acted in conformity with his bad
character. La. C. E. art. 404( B)( 1). However, the State may introduce evidence of
other crimes if the State establishes an independent and relevant reason, i.e., to
show motive, opportunity, intent, or preparation, or when the evidence relates to
conduct which constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the
subject of the present proceeding. La. C. E. art. 404( B)( 1). Even when the other
crimes evidence is offered for a purpose allowed under Article 404( B), the
evidence is not admissible unless it tends to prove a material fact at issue or to
rebut a defendant' s defense. State v. Taylor, 2016- 1124 ( La. 12/ 1/ 16), 217 So. 3d
283, 292. Moreover, the State must provide defendant with written notice before
trial that it intends to offer prior crimes evidence. Id. Additionally, the State must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed the other acts.
La. C. E. art. 1104; Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690- 91, 108 S. Ct.
1st 1496, 1501- 02, 99 L. Ed. 2d 771 ( 1988); State v. Brue, 2009- 2281 ( La. App.
Cir. 5/ 7/ 10), 2010 WL 1838383, at * 6, n.4 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2010- 1317
La. 1/ 7/ 11), 52 So. 3d 883.
Further, La. C. E. art. 412. 2( A) provides:
When an accused is charged with a crime involving
15 sexually assaultive behavior, or with acts that constitute a sex offense involving a victim who was under the age of seventeen at the time of the offense, evidence of the accused' s commission of another crime, wrong, or act
involving sexually assaultive behavior or acts which indicate a lustful disposition toward children may be admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant subject to the balancing test provided in Article 403.
Louisiana Code of Evidence article 402 provides that "[ a] ll relevant
evidence is admissible[.]" Under La. C. E. art. 403, otherwise relevant evidence
may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by
considerations of undue delay, or waste of time." Evidence is deemed relevant if
such evidence has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than
it would be without the evidence. La. C. E. art. 401.
Prior crimes differing from those at issue in a prosecution are still probative
to establish a defendant' s " lustful disposition" toward children. See, g.g., Friday,
73 So. 3d at 927. It is not necessary, for purposes of Article 412.2 testimony, for
defendant to have been charged, prosecuted, or convicted of the " other acts"
described. State v. Berry, 51, 213 ( La. App. 2" d Cir. 5/ 17/ 17), 221 So. 3d 967,
986, writ denied, 2017- 1146 ( La. 12/ 17/ 18), 257 So. 3d 1260. Further, " in
enacting Article 412. 2, the Legislature did not see fit to impose a restriction
requiring such evidence to meet a stringent similarity requirement for
admissibility." State v. Wright, 2011- 0141 ( La. 12/ 6/ 11), 79 So. 3d 309, 317.
See also State v. Luper, 2019- 0489 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 15/ 19), 2019 WL
6045367, at * 6 ( unpublished) ( possession of soiled children' s diapers properly
admitted to make the inference of a sexualized view of young children). The
burden on the State at the instant trial regarding the prior acts was to prove them by
a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt as required to
16 obtain a conviction. Cf. State v. Harris, 2011- 253 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 12/ 28/ 11), 83
So. 3d 269, 278, writ denied, 2012- 0401 ( La. 8/ 22/ 12), 97 So. 3d 376. Finally, a
trial court' s ruling on the admissibility of the additional other crimes evidence will
not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Altenberger, 2013- 2518
La. 4/ 11/ 14), 139 So. 3d 510, 515 ( per curiam); State v. Jackson, 2018- 0261 ( La.
App. 1st Cir. 11/ 2/ 18), 265 So. 3d 928, 939- 40, writ denied, 2018- 1969 ( La.
4/ 22/ 19), 268 So. 3d 304. See also Wright, 79 So. 3d at 316.
Here, the then sixteen -year- old defendant pled guilty to the sexual battery of
a juvenile female under the age of fourteen years old. Though more details are not
provided by the record, it is clear that the age and gender of the victim in that case
are squarely consistent with the ages and gender of the three victims of the
offenses for which he was tried in the instant case. Moreover, even assuming
arguendo that the trial court erred, the effect of that error was rendered harmless by
the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented by the State. See State v. Becnel,
2016- 1297 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 20/ 17), 220 So. 3d 27, 34, writ denied, 2017- 1023
La. 3/ 9/ 18), 238 So. 3d 451 ( observing that the erroneous admission of other
crimes evidence is subject to a harmless -error analysis, which considers whether
the jury' s verdict was " surely unattributable to the error"). This claim is without
merit.
PATENT ERROR
This court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this
matter, including a review for error under La. C. Cr.P. art. 920( 2). Our review has
revealed the existence of a patent sentencing error in this case.
Defendant filed a motion for new trial, and the trial court denied it on the
day of sentencing, just prior to the imposition of sentence. Louisiana Code of
Criminal Procedure article 873 mandates, in pertinent part, that "[ i] f a motion for a
new trial, or in arrest of judgment, is filed, sentence shall not be imposed until at
17 least twenty- four hours after the motion is overruled, ... [ unless] the defendant
expressly waives a delay[.]" There is no indication in the record defendant waived
the twenty- four hour delay for sentencing. Herein, the trial court erred by
sentencing defendant immediately after ruling on the motion for new trial. While
defense counsel did not contest moving on to sentencing immediately following
the denials of his motion for new trial, in State v. Kisack, 2016- 0797 ( La.
10/ 18/ 17), 236 So. 3d 1201, 1205 ( per curiam), cert. denied, U.S. , 138 S.
Ct. 1175, 200 L. Ed. 2d 322 ( 2018), the supreme court found the defense counsel' s
participation in the sentencing hearing was insufficient to constitute a waiver of the
delay required by Article 873. As observed by the court, "[ a] n implicit waiver ...
runs afoul of the plain language of Art. 873 that requires that the waiver be
expressly made." Id.
Nevertheless, in State v. Augustine, 555 So. 2d 1331, 1333- 34 ( La. 1990),
the Louisiana Supreme Court indicated that a failure to observe the twenty- four
hour delay provided in Article 873 will be considered harmless error where
defendant cannot show that he suffered prejudice from the violation, and
sentencing is not challenged on appeal. See State v. White, 404 So. 2d 1202,
1204- 05 ( La. 1981). See also State v. Carter, 2014- 0742 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
3/ 25/ 15), 167 So. 3d 970, 979 ( observing that "[ a] s a general rule, when a
defendant challenges a non -mandatory sentence, and the delay is not waived, the
defendant' s sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing").
Defendant has raised no challenge to the sentences imposed on appeal.
As an initial matter, defendant was sentenced to mandatory minimum
sentences in his convictions for aggravated rape, sexual battery, and oral sexual
battery. In State v. Seals, 95- 0305 ( La. 11/ 25/ 96), 684 So. 2d 368, 380, cert.
denied, 520 U.S. 1199, 117 S. Ct. 1558, 137 L. Ed. 2d 705 ( 1997), the Louisiana
Supreme Court noted that the mandatory nature of the sentence distinguished the
18 case from Augustine, supra, and found that the reversal of the sentence for failure
to wait twenty- four hours between the denial of the motion and imposition of
sentence was not warranted in the absence of prejudice. See also State v. Sam,
99- 0300 ( La. App. 4th Cir. 4/ 19/ 00), 761 So. 2d 72, 77- 78, writ denied, 2000- 1890
La. 9/ 14/ 01), 796 So. 2d 672. Accordingly, any error in the trial court' s failure to
observe the twenty- four hour delay is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and
does not require a remand for resentencing. See Seals, 684 So. 2d at 380 (" Delay
or no delay, the sentence the judge was required to impose would have been the
same. Thus, no prejudice could possibly have resulted from the failure of the court
to comply with the delay.").
Defendant' s fifteen -year sentence at hard labor for indecent behavior with a
juvenile is in the middle of the permissible sentencing range. La. R. S.
14: 81( H)(2). However, defendant does not raise his sentencing as an issue on
appeal, and, therefore, does not show any prejudice by his procedurally improper
sentencing. Accordingly, any error in the trial court' s failure to observe the
twenty- four hour delay is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and does not require
a remand for resentencing. State v. McIntosh, 2018- 0768 ( La. App. 1St Cir.
2/ 28/ 19), 275 So. 3d 1, 8, writ denied, 2019- 00734 ( La. 10/ 21/ 19), 280 So. 3d
1175.
DECREE
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the defendant' s convictions and
sentences.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.