State Of Louisiana VS Jaret Paul Francis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT i NUMBER 2010 KA 0790 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JARET PAUL FRANCIS Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 Appealed from the Thirty Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne Louisiana Trial Court Number 504 828 Honorable George J Larke Jr Judge Joseph L Waitz Jr District Attorney Ellen Daigle Doskey Asst District Attorney Attorneys for State Appellee Houma LA Cate L Bartholomew Attorneys for Defendant Appellant New Orleans LA Jaret Paul Francis Martin E Regan Jr BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J WELCH J The defendant Jaret Paul Francis was charged by bill of information with felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile K 1 in violation of La R 14 He S S 80 pled not guilty Following a trial by jury the defendant was found guilty as charged The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for five years The court also ordered that the defendant register as a sex offender for fifteen years The defendant now appeals In two counseled briefs the defendant raises the following three assignments of error 1 The evidence presented by the State at trial was insufficient to convict the defendant of carnal knowledge of a juvenile 2 The trial court erred in denying the defense motions to excuse two 2 jurors for cause Mona Trahan and Carlene O Bryan 3 The sentence imposed is unconstitutionally excessive Finding no merit in any of the assigned errors we affirm the defendant s conviction and sentence FACTS On January 7 2008 S contacted Detective Keith Breaux of the Houma Police Department and reported that she had just learned that her daughter K S who had turned seventeen approximately four months earlier had been involved in sexual relationships with two older men when she was only sixteen years old The men were identified as K eighteen yearold boyfriend Jasmaine Brumfield s S and the twenty six yearold defendant In response to questioning by the police S K stated that she had sexual relations with Brumfield and the defendant at separate times during the summer of 2007 When questioned by the police regarding the allegations made by K the S I In accordance with La R 46 the victim herein is referenced only by her S 1844 W initials To further protect the identity of the victim her mother is also referenced by initials 2 In a separate counseled brief the defendant also assigns as error the trial court denial of s the defendant cause challenges against these two jurors s 2 defendant initially claimed he was unsure if he knew K He later admitted that S he was acquainted with the young lady but denied ever having any type of sexual relationship with her The defendant was arrested and charged with felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile 3 At the trial K testified that she met the defendant during the summer of S 2007 through her older sister K had just ended her relationship with Brumfield S when she began seeing the defendant K explained that the defendant would S enter her bedroom through the window and they would engage in sexual intercourse in her bed while her parents were asleep in their bedroom She stated she and the defendant also had sexual intercourse once while her parents were away from the home According to K the sexual encounters occurred S repeatedly during the summer months of 2007 when she was sixteen years old S K further testified that she turned seventeen in September of 2007 S testified S K disclosed the information regarding these sexual relationships to her in January 2008 S immediately reported the matter to the police The defendant testified on his own behalf and denied ever having a sexual relationship with K The defendant confirmed that he did meet K through her S S older sister The defendant claimed he and K developed somewhat of a S friendship They periodically spoke on the telephone and he sometimes visited her at her place of employment The defendant claimed he discontinued his friendship with K after she expressed that she was interested in a romantic relationship S with him According to the defendant he told K she was too young and S explained that he was not interested in her in that way The defendant denied ever entering K bedroom through the window or ever having sexual intercourse s S with her The defendant theorized that K fabricated the allegations of a sexual S 3 The record suggests that Brumfield was also questioned and charged with misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile He is not a party to the instant appeal 3 relationship because she was upset at him for declining her advances However the defendant admitted that several months elapsed between the time he discontinued his friendship with K and the time he was questioned by the police S SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE The defendant argues the evidence presented at the trial of this matter was insufficient to support the carnal knowledge of a juvenile conviction Specifically he asserts the State evidence against him which primarily consisted of K s s S testimony failed to prove that he had sexual intercourse with K He notes that S S K stated in her testimony that she had a sexual intercourse relationship with the defendant but she failed to explain her appreciation of the term The defendant further argues that the State failed to definitively prove the dates upon which the alleged sexual intercourse took place He argues that this information is critical since K turned seventeen during the possible time frame set forth by the State S The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence is set forth in Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 99 S 2781 61 L 560 1979 see La S Ct 2d Ed P Cr C art 821 Under Jackson the standard for testing the sufficiency of evidence requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational trier of fact viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt Jackson 443 S U at 319 99 S at 2789 State v James 20022079 p 3 La App I Cir Ct 03 9 5 849 So 574 579 2d When there is conflicting testimony about factual matters the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses the matter is one of the weight of the evidence not its sufficiency State v Woods 2000 2147 p 5 La App I Cir 5111101 787 So 1083 1088 writ denied 2001 2d 2389 La 6 817 So 1153 As the trier of fact the jury was free to 02 14 2d accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness See State v 0 Johnson 990385 p 9 La App I Cir 11 745 So 217 223 writ 99 5 2d denied 20000829 La 11 774 So 971 This court will not assess the 00 13 2d credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder s determination of guilt State v Marshall 992884 p 5 La App I Cir 00 8 11 808 So 376 380 2d Prior to the amendment by 2008 La Acts No 331 1 La R 14 S 80 provided in pertinent part as follows A Felony carnal knowledge of ajuvenile is committed when 1 A person who is nineteen years of age or older has sexual intercourse with consent with a person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than seventeen years of the age when the victim is not the spouse of the offender or 2 A person who is seventeen years of age or older has sexual intercourse with consent with a person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than fifteen years of age when the victim is not the spouse of the offender or 3 A person commits a second or subsequent offense of misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile or a person who has been convicted one or more times of violating one or more crimes for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender under R S 542 15 commits a first offense of misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile B As used in this Section sexual intercourse means anal oral or vaginal sexual intercourse C Lack of knowledge of the juvenile age shall not be a s defense Emission is not necessary and penetration however slight is sufficient to complete the crime In the instant case the State sought to prove that K was under seventeen S years of age at the time she had sexual intercourse with the twenty sixyear old defendant The evidence of the existence of a sexual intercourse relationship between K and the defendant consisted primarily of K testimony S s S The defendant testified that his date of birth is May 30 1981 K testified that her S date of birth is September 4 1990 5 Evidence of intercourse The defendant contends that the State did not present sufficient evidence of sexual intercourse as required by the statute We disagree Throughout the trial S K then nineteen years old responded affirmatively when asked if she had a sexual intercourse relationship with the defendant Although she did not specifically state that the defendant penetrated her K testified that she and the S defendant engaged in sexual intercourse the exact activity criminalized under the carnal knowledge of a juvenile statute K further explained that during the S sexual intercourse the defendant used protection sometimes and other times he did not According to K when he was not wearing protection the defendant S ejaculated on her stomach and then wiped it off with a towel K also testified S that she feared possibly becoming pregnant as a result of having sexual intercourse with the defendant Viewing K testimony in its entirety s S particularly the testimony regarding the existence of a sexual intercourse relationship the defendant ejaculation at the conclusion of the intercourse and s s S K fear of possibly becoming pregnant it is clear that any rational juror could find that vaginal intercourse occurred on each of the sexual intercourse encounters described by K even absent any specific mention of penetration S Dates ofencounters Insofar as the defendant argues the State failed to definitively prove the dates of the alleged sexual encounters we find such proof is not necessary to support the conviction S K testified that she was sixteen years old when the sexual relationship with the defendant began According to K she and the S defendant had sexual intercourse on various occasions during the months of July and August of 2007 As previously noted K turned seventeen in September of S 2007 Therefore it is clear that the twomonth sexual relationship between the defendant and K occurred when K was only sixteen and the defendant was S S six twenty The fact that the exact dates of the encounters were not proven is of no moment It is well settled that if found to be credible the testimony of the victim of a sex offense alone is sufficient to establish the elements of the offense even where the State does not introduce medical scientific or physical evidence to prove the commission of the offense by the defendant See State v Hampton 972096 pp 3 9 La App 0 Cir 6 716 So 417 418421 Therefore the victim 98 29 2d s testimony which the jury obviously found credible was sufficient to prove all elements of carnal knowledge of a juvenile This assignment of error lacks merit CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE Next the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the defense challenges for cause against prospective jurors Carlene O and Mona Trahan Bryan Specifically he notes that Ms O is a reserve deputy for the Lafourche Bryan Parish Sheriff Office and is married to a sergeant with the Houma Police s Department He contends that Ms O close association with law s Bryan enforcement made it unreasonable to conclude that the relationship would not influence her in arriving at a verdict The defendant asserts Ms Trahan also should have been excluded for cause based upon the fact that she worked at the Waitz and Downer Law Firm where the Terrebonne Parish District Attorney was of counsel The grounds upon which a challenge for cause can be made are set forth in La C art 797 which provides P Cr The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that 1 The juror lacks a qualification required by law 2 The juror is not impartial whatever the cause of his partiality An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant 7 shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror if he declares and the court is satisfied that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence 3 The relationship whether by blood marriage employment friendship or enmity between the juror and the defendant the person injured by the offense the district attorney or defense counsel is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict 4 The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court or 5 The juror served on the grand jury that found the indictment or on a petit jury that once tried the defendant for the same or any other offense A defendant must object at the time of the ruling on the refusal to sustain a challenge for cause of a prospective juror La C art 800 Prejudice is P Cr A presumed when a challenge for cause is erroneously denied by a trial court and the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges To prove there has been reversible error warranting reversal of the conviction the defendant need only show 1 the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause and 2 the use of all his peremptory challenges State v Robertson 92 2660 La 1 630 So 94 14 2d 1278 12801281 It is undisputed that defense counsel exhausted all of the allotted peremptory challenges in this case Therefore we need only determine the issue of whether the trial judge erred in denying the defendant challenges for cause s regarding the prospective jurors in question Carlene O an Bo Service on a criminal jury by one associated with law enforcement must be closely scrutinized and may justify a challenge for cause however such association does not automatically disqualify a prospective juror A juror s relationship to one associated with law enforcement only disqualifies him if the relationship is such that one might reasonably conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at the verdict The trial judge is vested with wide discretion in 0 appraising the impartiality of prospective jurors and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion State v Comeaux 514 So 84 95 La 1987 2d In the instant case although he acknowledges that law enforcement officers are no longer automatically disqualified from jury service see State v Ballard 982198 pp 35 La 10 747 So 1077 10791080 the defendant argues 99 19 2d that Ms O did not indicate that she could be an impartial juror Bryan We disagree First the trial court specifically asked the panel of prospective jurors whether there was any reason why they would not give both the accused and the State a fair trial and decide this case based solely upon the evidence presented and in accordance with the law remain fair and impartial None of the jurors indicated they could not When questioned by the trial court on whether her relationship with law enforcement would affect her ability to be fair Ms O Bryan indicated it would not She indicated she would listen to both sides and be fair to all parties In further questioning Ms O assured the court that she would Bryan afford the defendant all of his constitutional rights The judge denied the cause challenge and stated he was convinced Ms O could be fair Based upon our Bryan review of the entire voir dire transcript we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the challenge for cause as to this prospective juror This argument lacks merit Mona Trahan The defendant argues that Ms Trahan employment relationship with the s District Attorney private law practice and the fact that the firm works closely s with law enforcement should have resulted in her being excused for cause We again disagree Initially we note Ms Trahan voir dire responses revealed that s the law firm where she is employed is actually owned by the District Attorney s father Joseph Waitz Sr According to Ms Trahan the District Attorney Joseph OJ Waitz Jr remains listed of counsel but does not actively practice and rarely visits the office Relationships whether by blood or marriage between a juror and other participants in criminal cases i defendant victim district attorney and defense e counsel are considered grounds sufficient to support a cause challenge provided the relationship is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict See State v Allen 95 1754 pp 13 14 La 9 96 5 682 So 713 724 To support a challenge for cause based upon the existence of 2d such a relationship the juror responses to examination must reveal facts from s which bias prejudice or partiality may be reasonably inferred State v Frost 97 1771 p 9 La 12 727 So 417 426 cert denied 528 U 831 120 S 98 1 2d S Ct 87 145 L 74 1999 The mere existence of the relationship alone would not 2d Ed serve to disqualify the related jurors from jury service absent a showing that the relationship would influence the jurors in arriving at a verdict No such showing was made in this case The trial court questioned Ms Trahan as follows regarding her employment relationship THE COURT And you work for MS TRAHAN Joe Waitz THE COURT Joe Waitz Office s MS TRAHAN s He part of our firm Well it his dad firm and he s s THE COURT Okay So let me be certain So let me kind of cover it because there will ll You Try to cover a couple of other questions with you because sic your connection Does your employment in any way affect your ability to be fair and impartial here today 10 MS TRAHAN No THE COURT And even though you work with Mr Waitz firm who the s s district attorney MS TRAHAN Right THE COURT and Mr Hagen is prosecuting on behalf of his office can you put that aside and give both the State and the Defense a fair trial MS TRAHAN Yes THE COURT And without any You wouldn feel prejudiced pressured in t the sense that well if I don decide for the State you know they may t fire me or they may MS TRAHAN No THE COURT Mr Waitz may not like me or Ms MS TRAHAN No THE COURT Ms Riviere may hold it against me or Mr Hagen or Mr Brown or whatever MS TRAHAN No THE COURT Okay You can asking you to do You can sit here and do And that all I s m MS TRAHAN Yes THE COURT Just sit here and listen to the facts and you decide whether MS TRAHAN Yes 11 THE COURT you believe those witnesses and you give the weight that you want you decide and apply those facts to the law as I give it to you Can you do that MS TRAHAN Yes While the existence of the employment relationship between the potential juror and the District Attorney should be scrutinized as should every instance in which there is some disclosed association with a defendant a victim a prosecuting attorney or defense counsel each case must be decided on its individual facts In this case Ms Trahan voir dire responses reveal that she was unequivocal in her s willingness and ability to decide the case in a fair and impartial manner She clearly indicated that she would listen to the evidence impartially decide the credibility of the witnesses and decide the case based upon the law and the evidence As the State notes the trial judge closely scrutinized the employment relationship and concluded it would not affect Ms Trahan ability to be an s effective juror Considering the entirety of Ms Trahan voir dire responses the s record supports a finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant challenge for cause s This assignment of error lacks merit EXCESSIVE SENTENCE In his final assignment of error the defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence Specifically he contends that the fiveyear sentence imposed in this case makes no measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals He argues that imposing such a lengthy sentence upon him a substantially contributing member of society is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and suffering The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth items which must be 12 considered by the trial court before imposing sentence La C art 894 The P Cr 1 trial court need not recite the entire checklist of Article 894 but the record must 1 reflect that it adequately considered the criteria In light of the criteria expressed by Article 894 a review for individual excessiveness should consider the 1 circumstances of the crime and the trial court stated reasons and factual basis for s its sentencing decision State v Hurst 992868 p 10 La App I Cir 10 00 3 797 So 75 83 writ denied 20003053 La 1015101 798 So 962 2d 2d Article I 20 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive punishment Although a sentence may be within statutory limits it may violate a defendant constitutional right against excessive punishment and is s subject to appellate review Generally a sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime or is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and suffering A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm to society it is so disproportionate as to shock one sense of justice A trial s judge is given wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits and the sentence imposed should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion Hurst 992868 at pp 1011 797 So at 83 2d Whoever commits the crime of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile shall be fined not more than 5 or imprisoned with or without hard labor for 00 000 not more than ten years or both provided that the defendant shall not be eligible to have his conviction set aside or his prosecution dismissed in accordance with the provisions of La C art 893 P Cr La R 14 S 80 D The defendant was sentenced to five years at hard labor Prior to imposing sentence in this case the trial court noted that it reviewed the nature of the offense and the defendant criminal history The court also heard s an impact statement from K mother S s S 13 S noted that this situation involved a grown man who took advantage of a child and never accepted responsibility for his actions In sentencing the defendant the trial court found that considering the nature of the offense and the defendant criminal background s which includes prior convictions for theft possession of Xanax and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle there is an undue risk that during a period of suspended sentence or probation the defendant would commit another crime The court concluded the defendant is in need of correctional treatment in a custodial environment and that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the offense As aggravating circumstances the court noted that the defendant knew or should have known the victim was particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to her youth and that the defendant failed to take responsibility for his actions In mitigation the court noted that had the sexual encounters taken place two months later after the victim turned seventeen it would not have been a criminal offense A thorough review of the record reveals the trial court adequately considered the criteria of Article 894 and did not manifestly abuse its discretion in imposing 1 the sentence herein As the trial court noted the defendant an adult over ten years older than the young victim took advantage of the teenage girl and refused to accept responsibility for his actions Under these circumstances the fiveyear sentence is neither grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense committed nor shocking to the sense ofjustice PATENT ERROR REVIEW The defendant requests that this court examine the record for patent errors Because this court routinely reviews the record for errors patent such a request is unnecessary Under La C art 920 our patent error review is limited to P Cr 2 errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence After a careful review of the record in these 14 proceedings we have found no reversible errors See State v Price 2005 2514 pp 18 22 La App I Cir 12 952 So 112 123 25 en banc writ 06 28 2d denied 2007 0130 La 2 So 1277 976 08 22 2d CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the defendant conviction and sentence are s affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 15
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.
