State v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 24 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | 45,621–KA.,Nos. 45,620–KA,s. 45,620–KA |
| Citation | 55 So.3d 856 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appelleev.Ruth E. MORRISON, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Paula Corley Marx, W. Jarred Franklin, Louisiana Appellate Project, for Appellant.Jonathan M. Stewart, District Attorney, Douglas L. Stokes, Jr., Jonesboro, LA, Kenneth P. Haines, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.Before GASKINS, CARAWAY and DREW, JJ.CARAWAY, J.
[2 Cir. 1] Ruth E. Morrison was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape and aggravated oral sexual battery and received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence on the rape conviction and 20 years at hard labor for the battery conviction. Morrison appeals urging five assignments of error. Morrison's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
In 1997, Morrison was charged with the aggravated rape and aggravated oral sexual battery of then nine-year-old J.M. More specifically, the bill of indictment alleged that Morrison aided and abetted her husband, Danny R. Morrison, in his having vaginal intercourse with J.M. and that Morrison had oral sex with the child.
[2 Cir. 2] In April of 1997, Morrison asked J.M.'s aunt,1 who was a family friend, if J.M. could spend the weekend at her house to attend a church function with her on Sunday. When J.M. arrived home on Sunday, she told a family member that Morrison and her husband touched her vagina with their tongues more than once and that Morrison's husband, Danny Morrison, tried to have sex with her. J.M. also told the family member that the incidents were videotaped. The next day, J.M.'s family took her to Child Protection Services, then to the Jackson Parish Sheriff's Office. During an interview at the sheriff's office, J.M. informed officers about the incident and that there was a videotape. Later that day, J.M. was taken for an examination by the Winn Parish Coroner, Dr. R.L. Williams, who found evidence of sexual abuse. During a search of the Morrison residence, sheriff's office investigators seized a videotape which contained footage of the acts described by J.M.
Following the execution of the search warrant, Morrison and her husband were arrested. Danny Morrison pled guilty to aggravated rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence in May of 1998. Morrison originally entered a plea of not guilty but issues were raised concerning her competency to proceed to trial. After a sanity hearing, the court concluded [2 Cir. 3] that Morrison was unable to proceed to trial due to an inability to understand the proceedings against her and to assist counsel in her defense. As a result of her incompetence, Morrison was committed to a state mental institution.
After approximately 8 years, on August 6, 2008, the court deemed Morrison competent to proceed to trial, and ordered that she be returned to the custody of the Jackson Parish Sheriff's Office. In preparation for the sanity hearing, Morrison was examined by Dr. James B. Pinkston, Ph.D., M.P. In his report dated March 11, 2008, Dr. Pinkston stated that he was hired by “Ms. Morrison's attorney to help determine her sanity at the time of the alleged offense, her ability to proceed to trail [ sic ] and her capacity to assist counsel.” In his evaluation, Dr. Pinkston considered all of the mental health difficulties that Morrison had in her life. He ultimately concluded that she was capable of assisting with her defense and communicating with her attorneys. Most importantly, Dr. Pinkston found that at the time Morrison committed the offenses she was able to distinguish between right and wrong. Specifically, he noted:
Evidence indicates that Ms. Morrison possesses sufficient cognitive resources to allow her to appreciate the appropriateness and potential wrongfulness of her behavior, and she indicated feeling that her behavior was wrong at the time of her offense.
[2 Cir. 4] Thereafter, on February 17, 2009, Morrison withdrew her former plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. A joint motion to consolidate the charges was granted by the trial court. Following the conclusion of the jury trial, Morrison was found guilty as charged. She received concurrent sentences of life in prison at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on the aggravated rape conviction and 20 years' imprisonment at hard labor for the aggravated oral sexual battery conviction. After a timely motion for reconsideration of sentence was denied, this appeal by Morrison ensued.
On appeal, Morrison raises issues of insufficient evidence to convict her of both offenses, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and court error.
Morrison argues that there is insufficient evidence to prove her guilt for the offense of aggravated rape beyond a reasonable doubt because the state failed to prove that her husband penetrated J.M., a requisite element of the crime of rape. Alternatively, Morrison argues that if the court concludes that an aggravated rape did occur, the defense of justification due to her fear of her husband warrants the reversal of both of her convictions despite her admission to the crime of aggravated oral sexual battery.2
[2 Cir. 5] At the time of the offense, La. R.S. 14:41 in pertinent part, provided: 3
A. Rape is the act of anal or vaginal sexual intercourse with a male or female person committed without the person's lawful consent.
B. Emission is not necessary, and any sexual penetration, when the rape involves vaginal or anal intercourse, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.
Likewise, La. R.S. 14:42 provided in pertinent part,4
A. Aggravated rape is a rape committed upon a person ... where the anal or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances:
* * * * * *
(4) When the victim is under the age of twelve years. Lack of knowledge of the victim's age shall not be a defense.
(5) When two or more offenders participated in the act.
A violation of La. R.S. 14:41 occurs when there is any penetration, however slight, of the aperture of the female genitalia, even its external features. State v. Bertrand, 461 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984), writ denied, 464 So.2d 314 (La.1985).
In this matter, Morrison was charged as a principal to aggravated rape. The law of principals as set forth in La. R.S. 14:24 provides:
[2 Cir. 6] All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime, are principals.
At the time of the offense, La. R.S. 14:43.4 defined aggravated oral sexual battery in pertinent part as follows: 5
A. Aggravated oral sexual battery is an oral sexual battery committed when the intentional touching of the genitals or anus of one person and the mouth of or tongue of another is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances:
* * * * * *
(4) When the victim is under the age of twelve years. Lack of knowledge of the victim's age shall not be a defense.
(5) When two or more offenders participated in the act without the consent of the victim.
La. R.S. 14:18 provides in pertinent part:
The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. This defense of justification can be claimed under the following circumstances:
* * * * * *
(6) When any crime, except murder, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not committed[.]
[2 Cir. 7] The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is 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 proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Tate, 01–1658 (La.5/20/03), 851 So.2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004); State v. Carter, 42,894 (La.App.2d Cir.1/9/08), 974 So.2d 181, writ denied, 08–0499 (La.11/14/08), 996 So.2d 1086. This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05–0477 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), 1 So.3d 833, writ denied, 09–0310 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297. The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94–3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Eason, 43,788 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/09), 3 So.3d 685, writ denied, 09–0725 (La.12/11/09), 23 So.3d 913, cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 3472, 177 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2010); State v. Hill, 42,025 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/07), 956 So.2d 758, writ [2 Cir. 8] denied, 07–1209 (La.12/14/07), 970 So.2d 529. See also, State v. Bowie, 43,374 (La.App.2d Cir.9/24/08), 997 So.2d 36, writ denied, 08–2639 (La.5/22/09), 9 So.3d 141 ().
The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Terry
...convicted accused must suffer. State v. Sugasti, 01–3407 (La.6/21/02), 820 So.2d 518;State v. Morrison, 45,620 (La.App.2d Cir.11/24/10), 55 So.3d 856. La. R.S. 14:81.2 was enacted in 1984. The subsection under which Defendant was sentenced as to Counts I and II at the time of the offenses r......
-
State v. Mesa
...penis and only stopping once S.B. threatened to tell her mother.15 (See State v. Morrison , 45,620 c/w 45,621 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/24/10), 55 So.3d 856, where the defendant argued on appeal that the State failed to prove sexual penetration thus requiring reversal of her aggravated rape convi......
-
State v. Broussard, 49,240-KA
...is an affirmative defense that must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Morrison, 45,620 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/24/10), 55 So. 3d 856, 864 (citing State v. Cheatwood, 458 So. 2d 907 (La. 1984)). The defense of justification can be claimed when any crime, except murder, is co......
-
State v. Mitchell, 49,713-KA
...has affirmed the mandatory life sentence for convictions of aggravated rape. See, State v. Morrison, 45,620 (La.App. 2d Cir. 11/24/10), 55 So.3d 856; State v. Morning, 49,300 (La.App. 2d Cir. 10/1/14), 149 So.3d 925; State v. York, supra. Thus, the burden was on the defendant to rebut the p......
-
Georgia's Safe Harbor Ruling for Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases Should Be Revisited
...for self-defense or defense of property claims in homicide but the defendant bears the burden in non-homicide cases); State v. Morrison, 55 So. 3d 856, 864 (La. Ct. App. 2010) ("The defense of justification is an affirmative defense that must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.").......