State v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 06 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. 34,624-KA.,34,624-KA.
• Citation: 785 So.2d 197
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Roy MURPHY, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 197

785 So.2d 197

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Roy MURPHY, Appellant.

No. 34,624-KA.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

April 6, 2001.

Louisiana Appellate Project, By Peggy J. Sullivan, Monroe, Counsel for Appellant.

Richard Ieyoub, Attorney General, Jerry L. Jones, District Attorney, Stephen T Sylvester, Assistant District Attorney, Counsel for Appellee.

Before NORRIS, STEWART and CARAWAY, JJ.

STEWART, J.

The defendant, Roy Murphy, was convicted of attempted aggravated rape in violation of La. R.S. 14:42A(4) and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment at hard labor, from which he now appeals. Finding no merit in the defendant's assignments of error, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

FACTS

During the summer of 1994, Erica Dubois resided at the Siesta Motel with her mother, Mary Dubois ("Mary"), Erica's three sisters-Kalisha, Shameka, and Kenyatta, Roy Murphy ("Murphy"), and John Pinkston ("Pinkston"). At this time, Mary Dubois was married to Otha Dubois, but she was involved in sexual relationships with John Pinkston and Roy Murphy. On the night of the rape, Mary and her four daughters were together at the Siesta Motel with her "boyfriends" John Pinkston and Roy Murphy. Further complicating this unusual arrangement, Mary requested that the children refer to Murphy as her cousin so that Pinkston would not get suspicious. Earlier that night, Mary, Pinkston, and Murphy consumed several beers while playing cards. Erica, then 11 years old, was lying on the floor. Roy, who was 37, was too drunk to return home, so he spent the night.

Erica testified that she was afraid to follow her mother's instruction that she sleep next to Murphy because he had "messed with her" before, and her mother knew of these previous incidents of molestation. Although unable to articulate specific dates, Erica testified about two previous incidents that occurred during the summer of 1994 where Murphy was drunk and fondled her vagina with his fingers.

Erica stated that after everyone in the room went to sleep, Murphy placed his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming. Next, he pulled down Erica's shorts and his pants, laid on top of her, and engaged in vaginal sexual intercourse with Erica for approximately fifteen minutes as her mother lay asleep next to them. Erica stated that she was scared to cry out for help because Murphy's knife was somewhere nearby. When he finished, Murphy promised her money if she did not tell her mother.

Erica's older sister, Kalisha, testified that the morning after the rape, Erica was crying as she explained the events of the rape to her. When Erica told her mother about the rape, Mary performed a check of Erica's underwear and Murphy's penis for blood, and finding none, determined that Erica was being untruthful.

Dr. Meade O'Boyle, a child physician specializing in evaluating children for sexual abuse, examined Erica 10 months after the incident on April 10,1995. Dr. O'Boyle could not conclusively testify that Erica had not been penetrated by another object. However, Dr. O'Boyle opined that Erica's vagina had been penetrated by an adult male penis because aspects of the child's vaginal tissue, referred to as labia, were very tight instead of floppy as they would be after a voluntary act of sexual intercourse. She testified that her theory was that the formation of a child's labia was determinative of the occurrence of involuntary sexual intercourse. Dr. O'Boyle testified that her unpublished, untested theory was based on several years experience in conducting child examinations to detect sexual abuse. Further, she testified that her examination revealed that the child's vagina had healed after what appeared to be a one-time injury to her vagina.

Dr. O'Boyle also observed that it was difficult for Erica to disclose the events surrounding the rape because the disclosure made Erica very upset and very emotional. Dr. O'Boyle also testified that Mary was very angry, and shouted at Erica throughout the exam insisting that she not tell what happened.

Murphy testified that he absolutely could not remember what happened that night. However, he remembered that Erica was told to sleep between him and Mary to avoid any suspicion from Pinkston. Murphy testified that he was drunk at the time that he gave a statement to the police investigating the incident, and that he was not given time to sober up. He insisted that his statements about sexual relations were in reference to Mary and not Erica. However, an examination of that statement clearly indicates that Murphy was referring to Erica.

Because Erica's mother did not report the rape until February of 1995, the crime was not investigated by Detective Rita McCormick of the Monroe Police Department and Debra Sherrill, a social worker in the Office of Community Services, until March 23, 1995.

At the conclusion of trial, the jury entered a unanimous responsive verdict of guilty for attempted aggravated rape. The court sentenced the defendant to 50 years imprisonment at hard labor. The court denied Murphy's oral motion to reconsider sentence.

DISCUSSION

Sufficiency of Evidence

Murphy argues that facts adduced from the testimony offered at trial were insufficient for the state to meet its burden of proof to support his conviction for attempted aggravated rape. Murphy contends that Dr. O'Boyle's examination produced no conclusive results linking him to raping Erica. In further challenging Dr. O'Boyle's results, Murphy argues in brief that her testimony was inadmissible. However, because defense counsel failed to object on the record to the admissibility of statements made by Dr. O'Boyle, our sufficiency of evidence review cannot include evaluating the scientific basis of her conclusions.

The state argues that the victim's testimony proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Murphy was guilty of aggravated rape. The expert testimony was conclusive in finding that sexual intercourse had occurred. The victim's physical exam showed that the victim's vagina was wide enough to admit an adult male penis.

When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence. The reason for reviewing sufficiency first is that the accused may be entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981), if a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in accord with Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could not reasonably conclude that all of the elements of the offense have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992); State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), 691 So.2d 347, writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), 701 So.2d 1333.

Under Jackson v. Virginia, supra, the proper standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of 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. State v. Bellamy, 599 So.2d 326 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1089 (La.1992).

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 the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts 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. State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La.1983); State v. Owens, 30,903 (La. App.2d Cir.9/25/98), 719 So.2d 610, writ denied, 98-2723 (La.2/5/99), 737 So.2d 747.

This court's authority to review questions of fact in a criminal case is limited to the sufficiency-of-the evidence evaluation under Jackson v. Virginia, supra, and does not extend to credibility determinations made by the trier of fact. La. Const. art. 5, § 10(B); State v. Williams, 448 So.2d 753 (La.App. 2d Cir.1984). 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. Bosley, supra; State v. Rogers, 494 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 499 So.2d 83 (La.1987). Accordingly, the reviewing court's role is not to assess credibility or reweigh evidence. State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1165; State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness's testimony, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Gradick, 29,-231 (La.App.2d Cir.1/22/97), 687 So.2d 1071; State v. White, 28,095 (La.App.2d Cir.5/8/96), 674 So.2d 1018, writ denied, 96-1459 (La.11/15/96), 682 So.2d 760.

The defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated rape in violation of La. R.S. 14:42A(4) which provides in pertinent part:

A. Aggravated rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty-five years of age or older or 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.

Under La. R.S. 14:41, a rape is defined as follows:

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, vaginal or anal,...