State v. Lane

CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana
Writing for the CourtJOHNSON, J.
CitationState v. Lane, 310 So.3d 794 (La. App. 2021)
Decision Date27 January 2021
Docket NumberNO. 20-KA-181,20-KA-181
Parties STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony L. LANE

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Metairie, Thomas J. Butler, Gail D. Schlosser, Harahan, Laura S. Schneidau

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ANTHONY L. LANE, Prentice L. White

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant, A.L., seeks review of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court's judgment finding Defendant guilty of two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile in violation of La. R.S. 14:81.1 Defendant was sentenced to six years with the Department of Corrections at hard labor for each count, to be served consecutively. Defendant was also required to register as a sex offender pursuant to La. R.S. 15:544. Defendant alleges that the evidence presented by the State during the two-day trial was insufficient to support his convictions. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's ruling.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 3, 2017, a bill of information charging Defendant with one count of indecent behavior with a juvenile, "Beth" (D.O.B. 10/29/1999), in violation of La. R.S. 14:81. Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment four days later. The State filed a superseding bill of information on July 13, 2018, charging Defendant with two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile (D.O.B. 10/29/1999 and D.O.B. 11/22/1998) in violation of La. R.S. 14:81. Defendant pled not guilty at his second arraignment on December 8, 2018.

Trial commenced on February 10, 2020, and a six-person jury unanimously found Defendant guilty the next day. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statement was denied on February 20, 2020. Defendant's motions for new trial and for post-verdict judgment of acquittal were also denied, and on March 16, 2020, Defendant was sentenced to six years imprisonment at hard labor for each count of indecent behavior with a juvenile, to be served consecutively, after waiving sentencing delays. The trial court also advised Defendant of his obligation to register as a sex offender and provided Defendant with a written copy of the sex offender notification requirements. Defendant's timely motion for appeal was granted on March 30, 2020, but his motion to reconsider sentence was denied on April 23, 2020.

At trial, "Mary", the victims’ aunt, testified that she and her nieces, with whom she visited weekly, enjoyed a close relationship. However, "Anne" secretly joined the military after her high school graduation. "Mary" was "very shocked" by the decision because "Anne" had been accepted to L.S.U. "Mary" recalled that "Beth" visited her at work on September 5, 2017, and the pair sat and talked in "Mary"'s car. During that conversation, "Beth" explained to "Mary" why her sister "Anne" joined the military. "Mary" recalled that "Beth"'s demeanor changed and "Beth" started to cry as she told her aunt that "Anne" was running away from Defendant, their father. "Beth" was 17 years old when she disclosed to her aunt that she and her sister had been abused. "Beth" asked "Mary" to keep the information a secret. Later, "Beth" gave "Mary" permission to tell "Nancy", "Mary"'s sister and the girls’ mother, about their conversation. "Mary" went to "Nancy"'s job to tell her about her visit with "Beth" and then the sisters went to "Nancy"'s house in Metairie, where "Mary" called 911 to inform the police. The State offered, filed, introduced and published the 911 call before playing the video tape in open court.

"Mary" described "Anne" and "Beth" as "good girls" who listen to their parents and "don't cause them no problems" or get into trouble. "Mary" did not know about any marital problems between her sister and Defendant or an incident in 2015 where the police were called out to the home. Defendant and "Mary"'s sister "Nancy" had dated since "Mary" was 15 years old. According to "Mary", Defendant was not a normal, doting father; "he was just there." She never saw Defendant do anything inappropriate, and the girls loved their father. Her nieces were not allowed to date or have boys over to the home. Although "Mary" read text messages between "Beth" and "Anne", she did not see the text messages between "Anne" and Defendant, but testified "["Beth"] told [her] that "Anne" didn't go to college because [Defendant] texted "Anne" and said [‘]I don't care where you gone, I'm always going to find you[’] and that's why ["Anne"] joined the Army and left." After Defendant went to jail, "Nancy" moved into "Mary"'s home.

"Nancy", Defendant's wife and the victim's mother, confirmed that her sister "Mary" visited her at work and informed her of her younger daughter's disclosure on September 6, 2017. She and Defendant had been married for fifteen or sixteen years. "Nancy" explained that the family had lived in the apartment on Populus2 since 2012. She and Defendant were separated at times while living on Populus, and Defendant was not always in the home. The family also lived on May, at one point, and stayed with family whenever they were evicted. The only time "Anne" had her own room was the first time the family lived on Populus. When "Anne" and "Beth" were around nine or ten years old, the family stayed on Hedera. "Nancy" described her daughters as "wonderful kids" and sweet, and added that "Anne" is "strong like me."

In 2017, "Nancy" worked at a day care and a chemical plant and also went to school full-time. She left the home at 2:15 a.m. in the morning and Defendant would be responsible for the children. On September 6, 2017, "Mary" went to "Nancy"'s job and told her that they had to go home because something happened. "Nancy" spoke to "Beth" at the house and "Nancy" recalled that "Beth" had tears in her eyes and was crying. "Nancy" testified that "Beth" said that "her dad had been touching her. Her dad had been coming in her room and touching her." "Nancy" agreed with the decision to call the police. When the police arrived, they spoke to "Beth" privately. "Anne" had been gone for approximately three weeks before her sister's disclosure. "Nancy"'s efforts to find "Anne" were unsuccessful but she suspected "Anne" went to the military because she had found a packing list in her laundry. "Nancy" remembered that "Anne" was in ROTC in school, but stated that it was not "Anne"'s lifelong dream to enter the military. Before "Anne" left, "Nancy" felt that the girls had become a little withdrawn. "Anne" refused to give her father a ride to work once and "Beth" was very quiet and had a crying spell approximately a month before the disclosure was made. "Nancy" gave "Anne"'s phone to the police in April 2018 in hopes that it would contain evidence of communications between Defendant and the victims. "Nancy" testified that she did not know a lot about phones, but her husband fixed and repaired phones if any family member's phone broke or was not working properly.

"Nancy" explained that her whole family saw her children a lot but she did not share details about the state of her marriage because she is a private person and her sister "talks too much." Defendant drank and worked at a club when the girls were eleven and twelve years old. "Nancy" admitted that she and Defendant argued a lot, and "Anne" got in the middle of a physical fight between them once. The girls were not allowed to date or entertain boys in the home. "Nancy" also testified that the girls had jobs and paid their own phone bills. "Nancy" never learned specific details about the abuse. She asked her daughters about the disclosures, but respected their privacy when they chose not to respond.

Detective Kerstin (Mcabee) Henderson began her career in law enforcement in 2007. In 2017, she worked in the personal violence unit of Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office (JPSO). She responded to the call at 2535 Populus on September 6, 2017. Det. Henderson recalled that "Beth" was shy and not forthcoming, but "Beth" was able to describe past incidents that Det. Henderson discerned were criminal in nature. "Beth" was 17 years old at the time of the initial interview, which she recorded. "Beth" told her that the abuse began around sixth or seventh grade and the last incident was around ninth grade. "Beth" told the detective that she did not witness abuse of any other victims, but she did talk to her sister, "Anne" about the abuse. "Beth" told Det. Henderson that the abuse took place at 2535 Populus and also on May Avenue, a previous residence.

Det. Henderson also interviewed "Beth"'s aunt and mother. "Beth"'s aunt, "Mary", confirmed the circumstances of the initial disclosure. "Beth"'s mother, "Nancy", told Det. Henderson that she did not have prior knowledge of the abuse, but she did recall an earlier incident where her older daughter "Anne" ran out of the house because she was upset about something that happened inside. Det. Henderson testified that there were no child custody issues in the home at the time the disclosure was made.

After speaking with "Beth" and her aunt and mother, Det. Henderson met with Defendant at the JPSO Criminal Investigations Bureau. The entirety of her contact and conversation with Defendant was recorded. A redacted version of the video, that the State and the defense stipulated to as including all relevant portions of Defendant's statement, was played in open court. Det. Henderson testified that she advised Defendant of his Miranda rights. The form she used to assist her with advising Defendant of his rights was also admitted into the record as evidence. After taking Defendant's statement, Det. Henderson applied for an arrest warrant charging Defendant with sexual battery and indecent behavior with a juvenile. "Beth" was the only victim at the time; Det. Henderson had not made contact with "Anne", who lived out-of-state, at that time.

Det. Henderson also interviewed the girls’ younger sister who did not make any disclosure but...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
28 cases
  • State v. Monterroso
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana
    • April 26, 2023
    ...exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury. State v. Lane, 20-181 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/27/21), 310 So.3d 794, 804. As a result, under the Jackson standard, a review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence does not require the reviewing court to......
  • Get Started for Free