State v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 18 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014 KA 1619.,2014 KA 1619.
• Citation: 182 So.3d 126
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Darall Luke ALEXANDER.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

182 So.3d 126

STATE of Louisiana

v.Darall Luke ALEXANDER.

No. 2014 KA 1619.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Sept. 18, 2015.

Warren Montgomery, District Attorney, Covington, LA and Kathryn W. Landry, Baton Rouge, LA, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee, State of Louisiana.

Timothy T. Yazbeck, Gretna, LA, Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, Darall Luke Alexander.

Before PETTIGREW, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CRAIN, JJ.

CRAIN, J.

The defendant, Darall Luke Alexander, was charged by bill of information with attempted aggravated rape, a violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:42 and 14:27. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty of the responsive offense of attempted forcible rape, a violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:42.1 and 14:27. The defendant filed a motion for postverdict judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor, with eighteen years suspended and five years of probation, with conditions. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS

On February 18, 2012, rain caused the collapse of a portion of the roof of the victim's house. The defendant, whom the victim, C.V., had known for approximately forty years, came and repaired the ceiling. After the repairs were complete, C.V. tried to escort the defendant to the front door, but he said he was not leaving, grabbed C.V. from behind, and wrapped his arms around her waist and rib area. C.V. struggled and pleaded with the defendant to let her go, but she was overpowered by him. As C.V. continued to resist, the defendant touched her vaginal area and placed one of his hands on the outside of the leggings she was wearing. He then picked C.V. up, slammed her into a chair, held her down, and forced her legs apart, positioning himself between C.V.'s legs. The defendant pulled up C.V.'s sweater and pulled down one side of her leggings and underwear. While the defendant attempted to pull down the other side of C.V.'s leggings, her knee "popped

," causing her to scream in agony. The defendant then released his grip, apologized, and left the house.

The next day, C.V. approached the defendant's cousin and told him the defendant tried to rape her, but the cousin did not want to be involved. Two days later a friend convinced C.V. to go to the police. C.V. filed a report at the Mandeville police station, and her injuries were photographed. C.V. returned the next day and gave a statement.

The defendant gave a statement to the investigating officers. He acknowledged going to C.V.'s house and repairing her ceiling, but claimed he left the house about five minutes after completing the repair and that he never touched her.

The defendant also testified at trial and denied trying to rape C.V. However, in a departure from his prior statement, the defendant testified that he did touch C.V. one time, when he assisted her up after she slipped and fell on the floor.

The leggings and underwear worn by C.V. during the attack were submitted for DNA testing. A spot on the waistline of the leggings contained a DNA mixture that could not be excluded as belonging to the defendant and C.V. According to the forensic DNA analyst, the mixture was 7,730 times more likely to be a mixture of DNA from C.V. and the defendant than a mixture from C.V. and an unknown person of the same race as the defendant.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for attempted forcible rape, and the trial court erred in denying the motions for postverdict judgment of acquittal and new trial.

A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it violates Due Process. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV ; La. Const. art. I, § 2. In reviewing claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must consider "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 821(B) ; State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1308–09 (La.1988 ). The Jackson standard, incorporated in Article 821, is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence, both direct and circumstantial, for reasonable doubt. State v. Petitto, 12–1670 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/26/13), 116 So.3d 761, 766, writ denied, 13–1183 (La.11/22/13), 126 So.3d 477 ; State v. Patorno, 01–2585 (La.App. 1 Cir, 6/21/02), 822 So.2d 141, 144.

When a conviction is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence, the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. State v. Wright, 98–0601 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/19/99), 730 So.2d 485, 487, writs denied, 99–0802 (La.10/29/99), 748 So.2d 1157, 00–0895 (La.11/17/00), 773 So.2d 732. When analyzing circumstantial evidence, Louisiana Revised Statute 15:438 provides that the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Petitto, 116 So.3d at 766 ; Patorno, 822 So.2d at 144. The facts then established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by that evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. Wright, 730 So.2d at 487.

Rape is the act of anal, oral, of vaginal sexual intercourse with a male or female person committed without the person's lawful consent. La. R.S. 14:41A. Emission is not necessary, and any sexual penetration, when the rape involves vaginal or anal intercourse, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime. La. R.S. 14:41B. Forcible rape is committed when the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim because the victim is prevented from resisting the act by force or threats of physical violence under circumstances where the victim reasonably believes that such resistance would not prevent the rape. La. R.S. 14:42.1A(1).

To support a conviction for attempted forcible rape, the State must prove the defendant had the specific intent to commit forcible rape and that he did an act for the purpose of, and tending directly toward, the accomplishing of his objective. See La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:42.1 ; State v. Dorsey, 30,683 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/98), 718 So.2d 466, 471, writ denied, 98–2227 (La.12/18/98), 732 So.2d 54. Specific intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La. R.S. 14:10(1). Such state of mind can be formed in an instant. State v. Cousan, 94–2503 (La.11/25/96), 684 So.2d 382, 390. Specific intent need not be proven as a fact but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant. State v. Graham, 420 So.2d 1126, 1127 (La.1982). The existence of specific intent is an ultimate legal conclusion to be resolved by the trier of fact. Petitto, 116 So.3d at 767.

The defendant argues that there is lack of physical evidence to prove he attempted to rape C.V. He contends that C.V.'s injuries were confined to her arms and back and were not "suggestive of a violent, sexual encounter perpetrated" by him; that an investigating officer, Detective Joseph Downs, testified that he could not remember C.V. walking with a limp or seeing any marks on the defendant from a possible struggle; that there were no signs of struggle at the house when Detective Downs visited it five days after the attack; and that law enforcement failed to test the sweater C.V. was wearing during the attack for DNA, or the chair where the struggle occurred for either DNA or fingerprint evidence.

The jury saw photographs of C.V. that showed bruises on her back and right elbow consistent with her being grabbed and thrown into a chair. The jury was also provided...