State Of Louisiana VS Randall Scott Laurent
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 KA 0656 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RANDALL SCOTT LAURENT Judgment Rendered October 31 2008 Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Case No 404213 The Honorable Elaine W Dimiceli Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for District State of Louisiana Attorney By Kathryn Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge Louisiana Appellee Frank Sloan Counsel for Mandeville Louisiana Randall Scott Laurant BEFORE Yr or7b fIa I tj 6uu fl J DefendantlAppellant KUHN GUIDRY AND GAIDRY JJ I vi HJJ t IJJ 4 J 1 VS 4S i2 F N GAIDRY J The defendant Randall Scott Laurent charged by bill of information was with molestation of a juvenile when the offender has control the juvenile guilty and The trial 14 812A The defendant entered violation of La R S a was tried before a The jury found the defendant jury sentenced the defendant court The State filed fifteen years to habitual offender bill of information and the defendant felony habitual offender the defendant The trial thirty five to years vacated the court imprisonment at offender For the adjudication conviction habitual offender adjudication was prior to sentence of not charged as at hard was over held a labor on the fourth and sentenced The defendant now support the conviction and following and plea adjudicated hard labor appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence habitual hearing A a guilty imprisonment habitual offender bill of information a supervision or reasons affirm we the sentence STATEMENT OF FACTS During the with her family the victim s residence residence since her the living kissing anything to store The victim a During a bag of ice was not According on to F L the to walk The family area V T home had After F L L F s only by her initials or as family members by initials the was July living 9 2005 street her to purchased food and gave F L to the placed the ice in her a adult cousin stopped He instructed her to sit clothing including shorts and underwear date of birth is June II 1989 victim s immediate across of key standing in her and started F L told the defendant the neck and mouth herein is referenced evening hours the defendant but the defendant continued s the fifteen year old victim hurricane in the grandmother removed her lower 1 t freezer she observed the defendant room her F L instructed her V T supplies in preparation for grandmother s of 2004 in Lacombe Louisiana mother s grandmother summer we on can t do the sofa and The victim further In accordance with La R S 46 I 844W the victim the victim to 2 We have also referenced the minor protect her privacy detailed acts occurred at babysit that included oral the defendant and sex residence s on vaginal penetration Similar incidents prior occasions when F L was there to the defendant s children ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE In the first insufficient of assignment The defendant contends that the support the verdict to the defendant argues that the evidence error which his conviction is based La RS notes by the supervision over the position a establish to of control or a position more at nearly ten year victim s special controlled court by virtue of supervision punishment for set out as or the trial in this control education status requesting clarification further instructed the in section A rather than made her jury to on to was to create a a the jury that the its read La RS 14 3 common sense was to the jury 3 a note to or the Without The trial court The defendant concludes that be resolved in his favor an absence of was or testimony control over or the insufficient evidence that he psychological intimidation The defendant argues that there sent supervision position of authority The defendant further contends that there menace being intimidated deliberations the jury must used force violence duress to susceptible about the elements of the offense harm argued the words control and court use during evidence that the defendant had any bodily or The defendant argues that confusion The defendant also contends that there victim of control offender who used an because the State case The defendant notes that ambiguity position difference in age between the defendant and the victim and the providing definitions the trial any a includes the statute The defendant supposes that section C of severe separate element of supervision magnified of influence on while juvenile section C which specifies the penalty eliminates the words intended use statute The defendant ambiguous that the definition of the offense in section A of the following language was is 14 81 2 was was no or threat of great testimony that the victim While the victim testified that the defendant resisted the defendant head down of the sex to his the defendant argues that the penis As noted act The was doing what an We formally assigned time on forced her to to do do and concluded anything taught by her parents as of the challenge s constitutionality of La that while the defendant briefed this argument it is note Further the defendant is as error appeal Ordinarily raised below errors not have been part 14 81 2 begin with the defendant 14 81 2 RS never adult told her Constitutionality of La R S We will her by the defendant Detective Wanda Jarvis testified that the victim indicated that the defendant that the victim pushing could pushed La defendant is not Code Crim a P raising entitled 841 art this issue for the first to appeal on not However complain of the Louisiana Supreme Court has consistently held that the facial unconstitutionality of a statute which on the is a conviction is based is and pleadings subject to appellate defendant did Crim P art 841 a statute statute the itself defendant upheld be valid whenever Because statute be a State bears the burden of of challenged v case possible state statute a statute may or the is s Thus this issue even particular conduct but argues the statute though of La the Code the constitutionality of constitutional the by The methods two application Gamberella 633 So 2d 595 the defendant does of proving its unconstitutionality be made statute inspection per curiam presumed Constitutional writ denied 94 0200 La 6 24 94 In this 920 art 596 So 2d 536 La 1992 be the basis of the attack upon vagueness 1993 Hoojkin constitutionality can can v presumed to are should be on mere of the evidence review under La Code Crim P State party challenging the Attacks inspection the by comply with the contemporaneous objection rule not Statutes without proceedings discoverable an error to challenges 601 02 La a particular may be based App 1st Cir 640 So 2d 1341 not attack the statute is unconstitutional 4 on s application to his its face because it is The constitutional guarantee that ambiguous nature and ofthe accusation cause unlawful conduct with sufficient reasonable intelligence conforming I La Const determined constitutionality penal the fair I 2 by which the guilt the statutes must and with reference Gamberella 633 So 2d at statutes given at a 602 a s describe persons of meaning and See U S Const penal statute must innocence of the accused of statute a genuine can hence and construction sense the purpose of the to be its according to in connection with the provision La RS 14 3 602 The crime of molestation of RS 14 81 2A or meaning be statute In addition 13 art of their words taken in their usual import context Gamberella 633 So 2d determining In against him requires that penal capable of discerning the are standards provide adequate accused shall be informed of the particularity and clarity that ordinary their conduct thereto amend XIV an a juvenile is in pertinent part defined by La follows as the commission the age of seventeen of any lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of any child under the age of seventeen where there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons with the intention of arousing or gratifYing the by virtue of a First is we note ambiguous by anyone sexual desires of either person by the use of influence position of control or supervision over the juvenile that the defendant is not terms of the in Section A the offense use As noted s statute the conduct of control We statute particularity and we find that La R S or proscribed is of construction unambiguous supervision is involved in 14 81 2 one As noted form of the by the defendant Section C governs the punishment for this The elements that the Nonetheless requirements under the applicable rules form ofthe offense find argument in support of his claim that the statute clearly developed satisfies the above noted Under the over are plainly describes the clarity that ordinary stated in Subsection A of the prohibited persons 5 conduct of reasonable statute with sufficient intelligence are of capable Moreover discerning the now turn to The not conforming their conduct thereto fmd that jury confusion contributed the other arguments raised in this to the verdict Thus States appellate court is controlled Court in Jackson Supreme L Ed 2d 560 P light most favorable the to 443 U S When analyzing trier of fact prosecution Brown 2003 0897 v State to convince rational proved beyond 22 La 4 12 05 La R S 15 438 p a 907 2d So a 1 provides that the Graham v 2002 1492 p 5 App La 1st Cir 845 So 2d 416 420 03 a jury testimony of any witness State Moreover depends witnesses is the matter Richardson 459 So 2d the trier of fact defense that to v a to accept or reject in whole Richardson 459 So 2d 31 38 conflicting testimony a upon of the a a case of the evidence matters the not its sufficiency State La v presented by the guilty unless there is another Moten A 1987 decide whether it believes the witnesses 6 App 1st Cir credibility of the of innocence falls and the defendant is writ denied 514 So 2d 126 La in part the involves circumstantial evidence and hypothesis reasonable doubt or about factual determination of the weight When reasonably rejects hypothesis that raises called upon one at 38 hypothesis 1st Cir is free where there is resolution of which App 61 be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable must As the trier of fact 1984 a adopted by the Legislature sufficient was circumstantial evidence of innocence hypothesis 14 2 State 2781 307 99 S Ct trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been reasonable doubt conviction is whether the evidence when viewed in 821 art a support by the standard enunciated by the United Virginia v to That standard of appellate review 1979 enacting La Code Crim 18 we assignment of error reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence Louisiana the and meaning s Sufficiency of the Evidence In in do we statute or 510 So 2d 55 reviewing 61 court is La not whether the conviction is the of the evidence weight State Smith 600 So 2d 1319 contrary to 1992 In the absence of internal contradiction physical evidence sufficient support for 8 p 27 4 La App 938 So 2d 168 1st Cir 6 9 06 According to the testimony presented education student at the also obese and suffered from cousin factual conclusion requisite a as her great outset sleep grandmother State the trier of fact by Thomas v the defendant around her was seventeen s the trial L F grandmother s at The victim The defendant is the victim and the defendant s grandfather described the alone in her grandmother acts s on she grew up and the defendant attended as was at the a good relationship with and trusted were During the trial and were Advocacy Center During the trial the victim specifically testified this incident However had her vagina with his the CAC interview F L therein F L to specified s lie down penis She account of that the defendant penetrate her vagina with his penis and began using his fingers when he difficulty doing so F L also stated touched her butt with his defendant during place when she and the defendant vagina During to at FL s top of her and penetrated similar divulged CAe the Children that took home most recent added that he also licked her was distant siblings are that after the defendant removed her lower clothing and instructed her the sofa he got s was the time of the trial The incident that occurred home place specifically tried La fifteen year old was a daughter before the incidents in question years old her interview that took on is 2005 2210 174 writ denied 2006 2403 of the incidents in question V T testified that she had family gatherings the victim at apnea Thus the victim knew the defendant FL La irreconcilable conflict with or if believed testimony s 1324 955 So 2d 683 07 special witness one v finger and during that interview that the defendant grabbed her legs placed his tongue inside her vagina 7 She specified that the L F s parents became concerned when they noticed that she had returned from her grandmother when the victim father knocked was able L F s leave the home to hair rollers s as she as disclose any details but ultimately close a relationship After Detective Wanda Jarvis emergency ended room divulged L F check on was to investigated to to an the incident and because he days it the victim as committing the was an was was in pain Based recorded to scheduled in oral digital penetration victim were place to was statement to engaging on more L F had with her room her observations and arrested July 9th After his police During the defendant specifying one occasion s on instruction that the victim come the door use complied with his desires was postponed for three to arrest s the defendant gave statement performed to oral he confessed sex on him have intercourse with the The defendant stated that all of the incidents not rape grandmother s the victim residence the residence and He stated that he got there knocked to on and further admitted that he tried than not July 12th the sex the victim victim told him and that the victim acts be resumed consensual and that he did at F L present during the was on adult The examination of the victim The defendant a of uncle with whom she interview of the victim Detective Jarvis concluded that the defendant did force in some examination Detective Jarvis testified that the examination was prematurely physical FL their home local emergency a point F L did not want to the conversation taken interrupted At that to enter to cry facts some her were V T noticed that hide began actions s passed her parents being privy uncle V T called the police and to ran to the bathroom locked herself in and went to had the door on the defendant missing were The defendant home s not As to the incident that took the defendant claimed that the began to kiss and hug him when he put his finger in the victim s vagina before her father The defendant stated that he ran The defendant stated that the acts of oral 8 and hid under the victim sex took place at s his house He confirmed that the victim been alcohol and consuming occasion when the victim sexual activity s age After the of the accounts s date of birth most recent prior incident was stipulated to took place the defendant at living s defendant s wife and children removed her clothing were and testified that the defendant then reference told her to to her be privates with his to quiet take it as she grossed to me One nighttime started body have over a was hurting her including body ejaculated on her The victim that he was a and the defendant F L stated that she telling her not wear a to be condom she stated leg the kissing the clarifying painful her and recalled him s night after the penis She further clarified that privates were FL babysitting occasion with her sex FL tough After and that really The victim stated that when the defendant s wife would ask her out not want to refuse because she did of the incidents took hours to his She stated that the defendant did she did babysit just after groaned During the CAC interview that the defendant conveying of 2004 the defendant started vagina She stated that the actions told the defendant that he and placed her factual residence When the other occupants asleep that was s in the middle of the room defendant and his wife returned home her summer not 1979 began divulging One of the incidents that occurred during birthday penetrated October 1 F L incidents that took place in the defendant victim as think she not reported was an occasion particular The defendant stated that he did babysat for the defendant and his wife during the fifteenth that on the time of the offenses and did at The defendant remember not on He stated that he did not think any took place between him and the victim know the victim young smoking marijuana before returning home babysat for him but admitted that he could He added that he had previously babysat for him place in the defendant On that occasion the defendant repeatedly pushing her head down not want to as she made attempted 9 to me s be questioned shed also give him oral lift it and during sex by slapping his penis on her lips when she initially refused interview F L clearly conveyed with the defendant and felt as that she had though he raped to her engage in these activities The victim also stated that was until she married to engage in such activities and noted that the defendant took that opportunity and kin desire no the defendant was way older At the end of the CAC open her mouth to to performed Benton noted that she had entrance of her genitalia L F Dr Benton produce any s s emergency Since F L physical further physical s emergency room visit Dr room status physical examination showed that of the skin in the back end of the uncomfortable with the evaluation of her was was incomplete and did not findings delayed and sporadic disclosure of the incidents s education status was since it could enhance the effects of naivete and external factors like significant intimidation on a person He added that such herself the victim He also testified that the victim among victims common wait expert in forensic pediatric an examination of F L Dr Benton testified that the is to superficial tearing a vagina Hospital weight problem sleeping disorder and education s excoriation an s follow up services Benton noted the victim Dr to away from her Dr Scott Benton of the Children medicine her She stated that she wanted a s likelihood become victimized and to victim would be more Age discrepancy should also be presence of intimidation or control a likely assign blame to factor in delay assessing disclosure him or the absence or to Dr Benton also noted that the chance of finding physical evidence is low in sexual assault cases The victim incidents in s mother testified that she trusted the defendant before the question were uncovered adult cousin she was defendant overnight s home As the defendant entrusted in the defendant on the babysitting 10 s care occasions was the victim when she s at the was the stayed The defendant older only adult present during the instant offense that took place grandmother s evidence in the that the evidence in the record clear that the defendant had sufficiently supports position a force in at least physical overwhelmingly ten under of some or his sexual desires one years of age year gap between the victim supervision to the prosecution authority and control instances The State specific s lascivious by s evidence juvenile age and the defendant s age s acts upon including The victim was a near The defendant the victim with the intention of by For the above virtue of his reasons It is of the incidents accounts a find the victim and over the time of the incidents and there of influence use the victim over at we the instant conviction established the elements of molestation of seventeen committed lewd favorable light most the defendant s confession and the victim was s home Viewing the also used the victim at gratifying of control position assignment of error or number is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO In the second assignment of error the defendant contends that in accordance with the minutes and the list of evidence filed State only that his introduced evidence of adjudication as fourth a two by the State on July 26 2007 the prior convictions The defendant concludes felony offender is therefore not supported by sufficient evidence In order obtain to establish both the a multiple offender conviction the State is required prior felony convictions and that the defendant is the person convicted of those felonies based on the possession Court a of May 7 in case same The habitual offender bill of information is following prior convictions Diazepam to a September 23 1997 conviction for number 267525 of the 22nd Judicial District 1999 conviction for illegal possession number 298234 of the 22nd Judicial District Court II of stolen and an things in April 17 case 2002 conviction for possession of marijuana second offense in the 22nd Judicial District Court All three number 330339 of case prior convictions are based on guilty pleas The the July 26 2007 matter was continued State s list of evidence proceedings As noted However reveals the following for set also stipulated a for the July 26 2007 and noted before he did July 26 the defendant s three s of such evidence fingerprints on the subsequent sentencing that there not contest objections to the number of predicates as two exhibit Exhibit copies of the bills of information 1 reasons and defendant s convictions habitual offender This assignment adjudication is based for on The to identity predicate guilty judgment in the we note extracts transcripts for all three prior convictions listed above that it listed in the habitual clearly predicates listed above relied s specified objection of the forth the evidence of the three We have reviewed the State filed proceedings felony bills of information The trial court prior The defense attorney was no the form of two prior convictions offender bill of information certified and hearing list 2007 The State filed into evidence Exhibit 1 and While the defendant filed pleas proceedings only for the transcript review of the acknowledged receipt to habitual offender by the defendant the minute entry and the contained certified evidence of the defendant defense attorney a located in the record immediately following the habitual offender bill of information convictions were that set adjudication that it consists of of minute entries and The record is clear that the on evidence of three prior of error lacks merit DECREE For the offender reasons assigned hereinabove the defendant adjudication and CONVICTION sentence are s conviction habitual affirmed HABITUAL OFFENDER SENTENCE AFFIRMED 12 ADJUDICATION AND NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2008 KA 0656 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RANDALLSCOTTLAURANT dissents and Guidry J W J Guidry assigns dissenting respectfully dissent from the majority I conviction habitual offender majority with the for the reasons s or beyond supervision I a over In order to convict prove and adjudication opinion affirming a the defendant is presented person under the age of 17 person over 3 there is an seventeen the defendant committed such lascivious or psychological by virtue of 14 8L2A 198 201 act upon a State intimidation position v of control or by the use of threat of great or 2 the sufficient a position state must the victim is the person act supervision Teague 04 1132 pp 2 3 La App a or 4 in the the victim and force violence duress bodily harm over or a with the intention of gratifying the sexual desires of either the defendant 6 the defendant committed the act either menace was disagree age difference of at least two years presence of the victim or lewd the age of juvenile a a arousing trial I the victim the defendant committed 5 at reasonable doubt that the defendant had defendant of molestation of a the defendant s Particularly sentence determination that the evidence state to prove of control s or the victim 3rd Cir 212105 b influence La RS 893 So 2d In the instant matter the verdict returned by the jury found the defendant guilty of molestation of a juvenile when the offender has supervision was an or over the juvenile absence of testimony supervision over According incidents in to the evidence at trial that he had any approximately each other and attended F L trial The incidents in occurred when F L s She was ten years also obese suffered from at in the the defendant at entailed babysitting the defendant defendant s wife kissed to L F L F removed her s summer house helping the they was generally babysitting his children defendant and his wife with were home and On watching the occasion F L one her bedroom the defendant went to room the After the living room clothing and had sexual intercourse with her According On another occasion sex of 2004 and watching television in the living the record F L spent the night him oral distant s children when the defendant and his wife returned s was went to outside in his shed L F wife friends with the children when night apnea F L testified that she children when the defendant and his wife left the house home late sleep older than her The defendant and F L knew question began was F L the babysitting position of control fifteen years old when the was family gatherings Additionally friends with the defendant was or appeal that there education classes in school The defendant is cousin and is was at testimony special L F or on of control the victim and attended whom position However the defendant argues question commenced According to a L F According at the house and returned home the was to at L F the defendant s testimony s house next speaking day with him the defendant made her give F L stated that the incident ended when she walked away and went into his house The the street most recent to her incident occurred in grandmother s house 2 July of 2005 when After placing a F L walked bag across of ice in her grandmother freezer she noticed the defendant in the s the defendant F L instructed F L and sex knocked to sit stopped on her and started These actions the door At that F L and testified that does not know they are absence or effects naivete status discrepancy is relevant presence of intimidation or in and from a plain reading of La determination that the s defendant had a position First La R S state of control 14 812A RS or the legislature acknowledging implicitly case the state and the set of the offense I supervision as one most majority be a factor whether over a of this consider as supervision to view it court s jurisprudence FL a two at year least two years age difference rely on the ten year s In the instant age difference determination that the However while this arguably over FL as determinative factor in the supervision over inclusion of the minimum age difference of element of the offense 3 the disagree with reasonable doubt that the support for the jury a the to of the elements ofthe offense that minimum of defendant had control and a legislature to or favorable that age differences could be greater between the defendant and F L defendant had control a Dr disclose to 14 81 2A and the proved beyond requires light the age difference between the defendant and the victim be Accordingly father control addressing the control and supervision element majority s determining whether there is However from my review of the evidence in the prosecution L F meaning the child engaging in something that they need Benton also stated that age an when in oral expert in forensic pediatric medicine evaluated education special a s engaged F L left the house point Dr Scott Benton the state interrupted were to The defendant then kiss her to According room the sofa removed her lower clothing and vaginal penetration on living a victim two years can analysis of ignores the as a separate Further which have cases have found that in order or supervision over was entrusted to the control establish that the defendant to victim the a interpreted state had supervision or was in a element of control position present some evidence that the victim to custody of the defendant the defendant performed caretaking the functions for the victim the defendant had rules for the victim the defendant had decision making authority present requiring him App 3rd Cir 893 So 2d 198 State 2 2 05 916 So 2d 488 State All of these meaning of power or cases authority Webster Inc or some La manage case position there is no of control which and to any time guide Further contrary evidence that F L she entrusted F L s critical a to nor the the care night at 10 2 05 716 So 2d respectively 1184 10th ed Merriam no establishing that the FL over as those words the not provided that he critically watched or directed her assumption made by the majority there is permission of the defendant the defendant s to supervise While there home on F L was some or objects according to the fair all of its import provisions occasion when she by analogy so as to create to promote justice and to effect shall be of their words given a genuine construction taken in their usual counection with the context and with reference to the purpose ofthe 4 sense provision at no that evidence provides for herein however in order ofthe law are evidence that the defendant had any The articles of this Code cannot be extended crimes as watching and directing his children defendant s wife was also present in the house and it Louisiana Revised Statute 14 3 La 1 mother gave the defendant to that F L spent the babysitting manage F L or App 3rd Cir defined are supervision generally and usually understood There is authority adult App 5th Cir 1st Cir 6 29 98 App only Teague 04 1132 evidence in the record or the activity that comports with the general also La R S 14 3 see v was Onstead 03 1413 La v supervision guide See State Collegiate Dictionary 252 s In the instant a the defendant or Rideaux 05 446 La v describe and to 1996 defendant had State Forbes 97 1839 v control Merriam Webster the victim supervise the victim to 875 So 2d 908 5 26 04 424 over in was was not a situation where F L that F L was was there because the defendant otherwise under the defendant Additionally the state relies on was the only defendant was the only adult present he freezer This went to supposed was to her be required grandmother a least the last occasion the on however is whether because the key was at to solely to across the s short errand supervise place a street when she her way home was on going to permission to go to the supervise this occasion FL s parents grandmother FL on nothing infer that the defendant had any directing F L on Finally at sufficient to majority during establish the seems to no evidence in the record the level of her mental Benton a nature to manage of ice in the from her parents living room that the defendant did give not entrust F L to his him care on of the situation that would or was critically watching conclude that because FL as to why incident that this if any influenced her response to or was to or possible children who the only position adult evidence amounts to a special of control status there is special education classes what was encompassing FLspecific mental s was a s FL special education to F L attended impairment juveniles with special needs older than F L and reasonable doubt that he had spoke in generalizations addressed in the was However with respect supervision status otherwise most recent beyond or education certainly juvenile this occasion the least and or authority education student and the defendant present house s this errand Further there is were not aware the bag The defendant entered the house and confronted FL in the home was adult present The or authority the fact that defendant On this occasion F L s her babysitting was how her specific special intimidation Further Dr ranges from small children to are mentally retarded and never capabilities and how her particular condition affected his considerations Therefore for the 5 foregoing reasons I find that the record is devoid of evidence sufficient for the doubt that the defendant had control In addition the by the use of great state failed or to state to prove prove that the defendant achieved the offense of force violence duress he was committing the who adult an and F L acts investigated act to any See State mere touching or to the forcible minimum effort exerted in imply that the incident wherein the defendant made involved force However and walked away that the defendant overcame state the will or guilty of molestation of a I molestation of behavior with art 821 2 disagree with a a majority oral seems to sex on the majority s him stopped present any evidence to prove that the defendant See La juveniles decision guilty RS of the 14 81A in violation of La R S 14 81A guilty of indecent See La Code Crim P e Louisiana Revised Statute 14 81A provides in pertinent part Indecent behavior with intention of arousing or juveniles is the commission of any ofthe following gratifying the sexual desires ofeither person Any lewd acts with the or lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of any child under the of seventeen where there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two age persons Lack of knowledge ofthe child s age shall not be a defense J 6 2 affirming the conviction of and rather would find the defendant juvenile juvenile performing the lewd it does establish that he is juvenile lesser offense of indecent behavior with Accordingly of force in The not of the resistance of the victim While the evidence in the record is insufficient was a use perform FL likewise did use means L F admitted that the incident ended when she Accordingly the forcibly not with his desires because complied LeBlanc 506 So 2d 119 120 La 1987 v threat the incident stated overcoming the will or the resistance of the victim which requires addition or the defendant did the force element refers Further intimidation psychological menace bodily harm Detective Wanda Jarvis force in reasonable a supervision over the victim that from her observations and interview with F L physical beyond
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
