State v. Jimmerson
| Decision Date | 28 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-742 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Ryan Odell JIMMERSON |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
J. Phillip Terrell, Jr., District Attorney, Catherine L. Davidson, Special Counsel, Appellate Division, Ninth Judicial District, Post Office Box 7538, Alexandria, Louisiana 71306-7358, (318) 473-6650, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
Gwendolyn K. Brown, Louisiana Appellate Project, P.O. Box 64962, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70896, (225) 229-6311, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Ryan Odell Jimmerson
Ryan Odell Jimmerson, In Proper Person, Louisiana State Prison, 17544 Tunica Trace, Angola, Louisiana 70712
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Chief Judge, John E. Conery, and Charles G. Fitzgerald, Judges.
In January 2019, the State indicted Defendant, Ryan Odell Jimmerson (born 5/5/92), for the alleged first degree rape of A.M.S.1 (born 2/8/08). A Rapides Parish jury heard the matter over two days in August 2021 and unanimously convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court denied Defendant's Motion for New Trial and thereafter sentenced Defendant to serve life at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant timely appealed. For the following reasons, we vacate Defendant's conviction and sentence and remand this matter for a new trial.
Jacqueline Session, A.M.S.’s mother, testified at trial that she dated Defendant for a number of years. For a time, Defendant lived with Ms. Session and her two children, son Tyler and daughter A.M.S. Ms. Session explained that she asked Defendant to move out of her home in 2015 after he fathered a child with another woman. Ms. Session and Defendant, however, maintained an on-again-off-again relationship. According to Ms. Session, Defendant continued to assist the family financially and, at times, he would care for the children while she was at work.
Ms. Session stated that her children informed her on October 24, 2018 of the alleged rape of A.M.S. Earlier that day, Tyler stated to her that he understood why she did not allow boys in A.M.S.’s bedroom. When Ms. Session asked Tyler why, he responded "because of what Ryan did to [A.M.S.]" Ms. Session explained that after she asked A.M.S. what Ryan had done, A.M.S. replied that Defendant "put a towel over her face and was hunching [sic] her."
Ms. Session testified that she immediately "packed the kids in the car" and that her initial intent was to kill Defendant. She stated, however, that "God ... made [her] car go to the police station."
Alexandria Police Officer Anthony Clayton took the initial complaint after the family's arrival at APD. He explained that Ms. Session informed him that Defendant had raped her daughter. The matter was thereafter assigned to Sergeant Michael C. Stroud, who met with Ms. Sessions that same evening. Sergeant Stroud explained that he ultimately determined the alleged conduct occurred in the "August, September range of 2017." Sergeant Stroud arranged for both A.M.S. and Tyler to be interviewed the following day at the Children's Advocacy Center (CAC).
In the recorded interview, then ten-year old A.M.S. explained to forensic interviewer Kirstin Bobbitt that she had been in her mother's room watching a movie when Defendant entered the room. A.M.S. described Defendant to Ms. Bobbitt as a "nasty man" because he "humped a little child like me." A.M.S. stated that "[w]henever he did, I was trying to get him off of me, but then he was holding me down, so I couldn't really do anything."
A.M.S. reported that the conduct occurred on three different days in three different rooms. A.M.S. explained to Ms. Bobbitt that her "butt" hurt, and that her mother kicked Defendant out because she knew something was going on. A.M.S. also reported that Defendant forced her to "suck his ‘D’ word" with her "hand," and what came out of Defendant's " ‘D’ word" was "black" and "looked like little seeds." A.M.S. further informed Ms. Bobbitt that Defendant "humped" her in the bathroom after putting a washcloth over her mouth. On this occasion, A.M.S. stated, Defendant made her watch a video of "some people humping." And, on yet another occasion, A.M.S. woke up to find Defendant in her bed. A.M.S. stated that Defendant told her she was lucky that her mother was home. A.M.S. confirmed to Ms. Bobbitt that Defendant acted as their babysitter. Sergeant Stroud observed the interview from the adjacent room at CAC. He testified that the interview was crucial in the investigation.
In addition to the CAC interview, Sergeant Stroud arranged for A.M.S. to undergo a physical examination with Dr. Brian Elkins, a family physician with training in child sexual abuse. Dr. Elkins explained in his resulting report that the "examination was normal and demonstrated no physical evidence of sexual abuse." Dr. Elkins indicated, however, that (Emphasis added.)
Sergeant Stroud explained that following Dr. Elkins’ exam of A.M.S., he obtained a warrant for Defendant's arrest. Defendant was arrested in November 2018 by State Police.
On January 29, 2019, the State charged Defendant with one count of first degree rape of A.M.S., a violation of La.R.S. 14:42, and twice amended the bill to reflect the allegation that the subject conduct occurred between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge.
When the matter proceeded to a two-day jury trial, Defendant took the stand and denied the allegations. At the close of evidence, defense counsel moved for a mistrial, asserting that the trial court impermissibly permitted the jury to hear opinion testimony from both Sergeant Stroud and Dr. Elkins regarding their assessment of A.M.S.’s credibility. Defense counsel also argued that a declaration of mistrial was required as the State, over defense counsel's objection, was permitted to question Defendant regarding his refusal to give a statement to police during the investigation. The trial court denied the motion. After deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict to the charged offense of first degree rape.
Defense counsel thereafter filed a Motion for New Trial, asserting that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence through the use of the CAC interview video and by questioning as to their opinion on Defendant's credibility that occurred during the testimony of Sergeant Stroud and Dr. Elkins. The trial court heard argument related to the Motion for New Trial at an October 14, 2021 hearing and denied the motion before proceeding with sentencing. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
Defense counsel filed the present appeal and assigns the following as error:
Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, we have reviewed this matter for errors patent on the face of the record. We find no such errors.
Combining the first, second and fourth assignments of errors, defense counsel argues that "[t]he trial court erred by allowing into evidence testimony that impermissibly bolstered the credibility of the child witness and spoke to the ultimate issue to be decided by the jury." Defense counsel notes that A.M.S. did not testify at trial, but that the State relied upon the CAC interview instead.
Defense counsel contends that the trial court erred in permitting both Sergeant Stroud and Dr. Elkins to comment on A.M.S.’s credibility in reporting or relating the allegation of rape. Defense counsel asserts that in the face of such testimony, coupled with questioning apprizing the jury of the witnesses’ familiarity with sexual abuse victims, Defendant "had no chance at a fair trial ...." Moreover, "in the impossibly unlikely event that the jury happened to forget such damning evidence," a copy of Dr. Elkins’ report was also admitted. Defense counsel thus maintains in brief that "[t]he trial court's erroneous rulings combined to deprive [Defendant] of his right to have his fate determined by the jury" as these witnesses "improperly and prejudicially testified as to ultimate questions of fact that properly belonged to the jury." Defense counsel contends that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion for new trial.
We first note that differing analyses are required for review of the opinion testimony of Sergeant Stroud, a lay witness, and that of Dr. Elkins, an expert. We first turn to that of Sergeant Stroud.
As related below, Sergeant Michael Stroud explained that he was called upon to investigate claims made by A.M.S. because the allegations "seemed to be legitimate." Sergeant Stroud indicated that he was in the observation room during A.M.S.’s CAC interview. The State questioned Sergeant Stroud about the interview as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial