State of Louisiana v. Wesley Jackson

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 8, 2023
• Docket: KA-0022-0303
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

22-303

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WESLEY JACKSON

**********

APPEAL FROM THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2021-CR-225893-B HONORABLE WILLIAM BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Van H. Kyzar, and Ledricka J. Thierry, Judges.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED. Hon. Charles A. Riddle, III Twelfth Judicial District Attorney Anthony F. Salario Assistant District Attorney Andrea D. Aymond Assistant District Attorney P. O. Box 1200 Marksville, LA 71351 (318) 253-6587 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Holli Herrle-Castillo LA Appellate Project P.O. Box 2333 Marrero, LA 70073 (504) 345-2801 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Wesley Jackson GREMILLION, Judge.

Defendant/appellant, Wesley Jackson, appeals his convictions of second

degree cruelty to a juvenile, in violation of La.R.S. 14:93.2.3 and two counts of

cruelty to a juvenile, in violation of La.R.S. 14:93. He asserts that the evidence at

trial was insufficient to support his conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm

Defendant’s conviction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

On January 24, 2021, Mandy Chatterton called the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s

Office to report a disturbance after she heard a child screaming near her house. The

Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s Office directed Ms. Chatterton to call the Marksville

Police Department to make the report. Ms. Chatterton anonymously called the

police department, then immediately called Officer Wesley Lachney, a patrol officer

she knew.

Ms. Chatterton was unable to provide an exact location of the screaming.

Officer Lachney drove to the surrounding area with his patrol car’s windows down

to listen for a child screaming. Captain Brent Couvillion followed for backup

purposes. The officers eventually determined that the noise originated from a shed

located at 404 Benita Street. As the officers approached the shed, they heard a

cracking noise followed by the sounds of a child crying and screaming. An adult

woman’s voice screamed profanities at the child. Through the shed’s window, the

officers observed the woman striking a young child with a two-foot-long, one-by-

four board. Officer Lachney and Captain Couvillion watched for approximately

thirty seconds before running into the shed and taking the board from the woman. The woman was identified as Briana Chaisson, and the child was determined to be

her son, five-year-old K.C.1

Officer Lachney placed K.C. in his patrol unit while waiting for the ambulance

to arrive to take him to the hospital. Officer Lachney recorded his interaction with

K.C., and that video was admitted into evidence. In the video, K.C. is noticeably

bleeding from his mouth, his face is severely bruised and swollen, and he is

shuddering and crying. When Officer Lachney asks K.C. who did that to his face,

K.C. replies: “my dad.”

When the officers went to the house, which was twelve to fifteen yards from

the shed, they were met by Defendant, Ms. Chaisson’s live-in fiancé. Officer

Lachney testified that Defendant seemed surprised by the sudden police presence

and acted like he did not know what had happened in the shed, despite K.C.’s loud

screams and the proximity of the shed. Also in the house were six-year-old C.C. and

four-year-old R.C. The officers noticed that R.C. had visible bug bites and bruises

on her face. Though the officers did not enter the house, the shed smelled of urine

and feces, as a toilet had overflowed, leaving sewage on the floor.

The children were transported to Avoyelles Hospital. Detective Dana Adams

with the Marksville Police Department was notified of the alleged child abuse and

went to Avoyelles Hospital. When he entered the hospital room, Detective Adams

immediately noticed K.C., who was severely bruised on his face and visibly upset.

C.C. and R.C. did not appear to be in obvious pain, as they were both walking around

the hospital room and talking, but Detective Adams later observed injuries on all

three children.

1 Pursuant to La.R.S. 46:1844(W)(1)(a), the victims’ initials are used to protect their identities.

2 Detective Adams photographed the children’s injuries, and those photographs

were admitted into evidence. The photographs depict the abrasions and bruises on

K.C.’s face, his bloodied lip, facial swelling, and bruises that covered his neck, back,

buttocks, arms, and legs. Detective Adams described K.C.’s bruises as ranging in

color from a deep blue to a greenish tint, reflecting both recent and older bruising.

C.C. had bruises on his chin and the back of his head that were greenish in color and

in the process of healing, as well as a knot on his forehead. Detective Adams

observed bruising and redness on R.C.’s arms, back, buttocks, and face. A case

worker with the Office of Child and Family Services (OCS) authorized the children’s

release to their maternal grandmother’s custody and scheduled an interview at the

Children’s Advocacy Center.

The three children were interviewed by Annelise Eaglin, a forensic

interviewer with the Children’s Advocacy Center, on February 21, 2021. 2 C.C.

described the abuse Defendant inflicted on the children and the various methods

Defendant used to punish them. K.C. detailed the injuries he sustained, indicating

his whole body had been hurt as a result of Defendant’s repeated beatings. R.C.

stated she had “bobos” on her stomach after she fell, but due to R.C.’s young age,

Ms. Eaglin was unable to comprehensively interview her.

Defendant and Ms. Chaisson were both taken into custody. Detective Adams

interviewed them separately as part of his investigation.

On April 13, 2021, Defendant and Ms. Chaisson were charged by bill of

information with three counts of second degree cruelty to a juvenile, in violation of

La.R.S. 14:93.2.3. The State alleged that Defendant and Ms. Chaisson caused severe

2 The trial transcript spells Ms. Eaglin’s name as “Annalise Eagling,” but we use the spelling reflected on her curriculum vitae.

3 bodily injury to Ms. Chaisson’s three children through their intentional or criminally

negligent mistreatment. On April 15, 2021, Defendant pleaded not guilty to the

charges, and the matter was set for a jury trial.

On November 8, 2021, the trial court granted Ms. Chaisson’s motion to sever

and ordered the co-defendants be tried separately. On November 9, 2021,

Defendant’s trial began.

The testimonies of Ms. Chatterton, Officer Lachney, Captain Couvillion,

Detective Adams, and Ms. Eaglin were summarized above. Additionally, the jury

heard the interviews of the children that Ms. Eaglin conducted.

Dr. James Bordelon, Jr. testified as an expert in general surgery and in his

capacity as the Avoyelles Parish Coroner. Dr. Bordelon testified that he reviewed

the children’s medical records from Avoyelles Hospital and the photographs taken

at the hospital but never treated them personally. Dr. Bordelon stated that K.C.’s

medical records demonstrated that he sustained significant injuries, including a

broken jaw, substantial bruising, and blood in his urine, likely as a result of blunt

force trauma to the stomach. Although he admitted C.C.’s and R.C.’s injuries were

less severe, Dr. Bordelon opined that the injuries went beyond normal child

discipline, and the impact that caused the injuries created a substantial risk of death.

Ms. Chatterton testified that she is a neighbor of Defendant and Ms. Chaisson.

She occasionally overheard people inside the home arguing at 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. The

early morning of January 24, 2021 was such an occasion. Ms. Chatterton was not

even aware that there were children in the home until that morning; she had never

seen a child playing in the yard. She heard “the little boy” screaming and saw “[h]im

and the lady” going in and out of the house. Ms. Chatterton identified Defendant as

the man she saw going in and out of the shed.

4 Ms. Chatterton characterized what she witnessed:

Well, I didn’t see him bring the little boy[;] when I started hearing the crying they were already in the shed.

....

That’s when I opened the window and I started watching, they never let the little boy out of the shed but he would go inside and she would stay in the shed and then she hit him and they just take turns[. A]ll I know is that the sounds were very bad.

Ms. Chatterton called the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff’s Office. She was directed

to call the Marksville Police Department. Rather than having to retell the story to

someone at the police department, Ms. Chatterton called Officer Lachney. Ms.

Chatterton wanted “to let the law take care of it because if [she] would have, [she]

would have been in jail.”

At the time of Defendant’s trial, Ms. Chaisson was awaiting trial, but she

waived her privilege against self-incrimination and agreed to testify against

Defendant. Ms. Chaisson stated that she had been in a “toxic” relationship with

Defendant for a little over a year at the time of her arrest. She testified that the

children’s biological father was not present in their lives, and Defendant acted as a

father figure to them. The children called Defendant “dad” or “daddy.” Ms.

Chaisson claimed Defendant’s physical abuse of the children accelerated after R.C.’s

third birthday and only stopped when the children were removed from the home.

Ms. Chaisson did not attempt to shirk the role she played in the children’s abuse but

maintained that Defendant was violent and alienated her from the rest of her family

to assert control.

Ms. Chaisson admitted to “whipping” K.C. with a board on January 24, 2021,

but she claimed that she did so because of her fear that Defendant would kill K.C. if

she did not intervene to “discipline” him. According to Ms. Chaisson, K.C. had a

5 toileting accident3 and threatened to run away earlier that morning, which angered

Defendant. Defendant and K.C. went to the shed and when Ms. Chaisson went to

check on them, she witnessed Defendant attempting to drown K.C. in an ice chest

filled with water. Defendant was forcing K.C.’s head underwater by holding him by

the back of his neck. Once Defendant saw her enter the shed, he threw K.C. across

the shed and told her “to handle [K.C.] or he would handle it[.]” Ms. Chaisson

believed Defendant would kill K.C. because he had severely beat K.C. for having an

accident the night before. That night, K.C. had been struck with the same one-by-

four board on the back of his legs and his back, and Defendant had punched K.C. in

the face. Ms. Chaisson admitted that she popped K.C. on the face but stated that

K.C.’s face was already swollen from being punched by Defendant the night before.

Ms. Chaisson testified that while C.C. was usually the one who was abused

the most, “it had been a good little while” since his last beating. C.C. was ordinarily

hit with the belt, but Ms. Chaisson recalled Defendant kicking C.C. in the chest. Ms.

Chaisson testified that Defendant would whip R.C. with a belt and acknowledged

R.C.’s buttocks were “tore up” when the State showed her the photographs taken at

the hospital. Ms. Chaisson proclaimed both she and Defendant were responsible for

abusing the three children.

On cross-examination, Ms. Chaisson admitted that she told two different

stories in her statements to police. In her first statement, Ms. Chaisson said she was

the disciplinarian in the family and any injuries inflicted on her children were

exclusively caused by her disciplining them. Ms. Chaisson claimed she was trying

3 Ms. Chaisson testified that the family had recently moved into the house, which had plumbing issues. While waiting for a plumber to be dispatched, the family was using a small toilet located outside in the shed.

6 to protect Defendant by claiming the sole responsibility at first, but she changed her

mind after she thought about her children. Ms. Chaisson implicated Defendant as

being a perpetrator in the children’s abuse in her second statement to police. Ms.

Chaisson testified that OCS had previously investigated her and Defendant after

finding a bruise on one of the boys’ faces, but the investigation concluded with the

children being returned to them.

Defendant did not testify. The State admitted into evidence his interview with

Detective Adams. In that statement, Defendant admitted spanking the children with

his hand or a belt and giving them a pop on the backs of their heads if they

misbehaved, but he asserted that Ms. Chaisson was the primary disciplinarian. He

denied ever abusing the children.

Defendant explained that he sometimes wrestled with the children and

assumed that K.C. misconstrued this for a punch. When he disciplined the children,

Defendant claimed, he made them stand on their toes. Defendant expressed wariness

at disciplining the children because they are not his, and, as a registered sex offender,

Defendant refrained from things such as bathing the children and changing diapers.

Defendant asserted that he suspected Ms. Chaisson of abusing the children, “but

they’re her kids.”

On November 10, 2021, Defendant was unanimously found guilty of one

count of second degree cruelty to a juvenile and two counts of cruelty to a juvenile,

in violation of La.R.S. 14:93. Defendant was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor

for second degree cruelty to a juvenile and five years at hard labor on each count of

cruelty to a juvenile. The trial court ordered the sentences be served consecutively.

As stated above, Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support

his convictions.

7 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Defendant’s sole assignment of error argues that, while the children were

indisputably abused, the evidence was based upon uncorroborated and conflicting

statements. Further, Defendant contends that the evidence was circumstantial, and

the State failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. When

reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence,

viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to convince a rational

juror that all elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979); State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676

(La.1984). A single witness’s identification of a defendant as the perpetrator can

support a conviction. See State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La.1988). A reviewing

court may encroach on the fact finder’s discretion “only to the extent necessary to

guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” Id. at 1310.

Second degree cruelty to a juvenile is defined by La.R.S. 14:93.2.3(A)(1):

“Second degree cruelty to juveniles is the intentional or criminally negligent

mistreatment or neglect by anyone over the age of seventeen to any child under the

age of seventeen which causes serious bodily injury or neurological impairment to

that child.” At the time of trial, Defendant was thirty-nine years old. K.C. was five

years old at the time of the offense. The age-disparity element of the offense was

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a result of his abuse, K.C. suffered bilateral mandibular fractures caused

by blunt force trauma of sufficient force, according to Dr. Bordelon, to have put K.C.

at risk of death. K.C.’s torso was extensively bruised. Some bruises were recent,

but others were older, as evidenced by coloration. Many of the bruises exhibited a

linear pattern, indicative of having been caused by an object such as a board. K.C.’s

8 urine contained traces of blood consistent with damage to the kidneys from such

trauma.

In State v. Dixon, 03-160 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/03), 852 So.2d 471, this court

held that the whipping of a child with an extension cord that caused wounds to the

child’s neck, back, legs, and buttocks, as well as a hematoma on the forehead, a

laceration on the upper lip, and swelling to the upper and lower lips, supported a

jury’s determination that the child had suffered serious bodily injury. The wounds

K.C. suffered were by no means less serious than the juvenile in Dixon. The serious

bodily injury element of the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Immediately after the officers rescued him from the shed, K.C. told Officer

Lachney that his “dad” caused his facial injuries. He likewise told Ms. Eaglin that

Defendant — whom K.C. frequently called “daddy” or “dad” — “whooped” his face.

Ms. Chatterton saw Defendant enter and exit the shed where K.C. was found. And

Ms. Chaisson also testified to Defendant’s abuse. Any reasonable juror could have

concluded that Defendant was properly identified as a perpetrator of K.C.’s injuries.

We find that the evidence firmly supports Defendant’s conviction for second

degree cruelty to a juvenile.

Cruelty to a juvenile is defined, in pertinent part, as “[t]he intentional or

criminally negligent mistreatment or neglect by anyone seventeen years of age or

older of any child under the age of seventeen whereby unjustifiable pain or suffering

is caused to said child.” La.R.S. 14:93(A)(1). The victim need not have sought

medical attention in order to find unjustifiable pain and suffering. State v. C.S.D.,

08-877 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/09), 4 So.3d 204.

Photographs taken at the time of medical attention show the injuries which

were inflicted upon C.C. and R.C. and demonstrate that the children experienced

9 unjustifiable pain and suffering. Despite the fact that C.C. told Ms. Eaglin it had

been a while since his last beating, he still had bruises on his chin, bruises on his

head, and a knot on his forehead. The bruises were in the healing process at the time

the photographs were taken at the hospital. The photographs of R.C. depict severe

bruising and redness on her arms, back, buttocks, and face. The evidence

undoubtedly established that C.C. and R.C. experienced unjustifiable pain and

suffering.

When interviewed at the Children’s Advocacy Center, C.C. identified a

perpetrator of his abuse as his “daddy,” and he said his daddy’s name was Wesley.

C.C. told Ms. Eaglin he had been good lately, and dad was not mad at him. However,

dad was mad at R.C. for being bad, and according to C.C., Defendant kicks her with

his boot when she is bad. C.C. said Defendant also gives R.C. “butt whoopings.”

At trial, Ms. Chaisson testified that C.C. was the most abused of her children and

described that Defendant would hit C.C. with a belt. She also described Defendant

kicking C.C. in the chest. Additionally, Ms. Chaisson identified Defendant as the

person who whipped R.C. with a belt on the buttocks, stating her buttocks were “tore

up” when she saw the photographs depicting R.C.’s recent and widespread bruising.

Defendant was sufficiently identified as a perpetrator of C.C.’s and R.C.’s abuse by

C.C. and Ms. Chaisson.

The jury in this matter concluded that the identification of Defendant as a

perpetrator of the children’s abuse was credible. A jury is free to accept or reject, in

whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. See State v. Dorsey, 10-216 (La.

9/7/11), 74 So.3d 603, cert. denied, 566 U.S. 930, 132 S.Ct. 1859 (2012); State v.

Johnson, 09-259 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/16/09), 22 So.3d 205, writ denied, 09-2263 (La.

4/16/10), 31 So.3d 1054. Defendant’s statements about disciplining the children

10 provide no justification whatsoever; La.R.S. 14:18(4) justifies reasonable discipline

of minors by a parent, tutor, or teacher, and Defendant was none of those. And,

given the extent of the demonstrated injuries to the children, one would be hard

pressed to characterize them as resulting from reasonable discipline.

DECREE

Defendant’s convictions of second degree cruelty to a juvenile and two counts

of cruelty to a juvenile are affirmed.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED.