State Of Louisiana VS Conrad Joseph Chiasson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 0205 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CONRAD JOSEPH CHIASSON Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 Appealed from the Thirty Second Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Trial Court Number 506 123 Honorable George J Larke Jr Judge Presiding Joseph Waitz Counsel for Appellee Jane W Chauvin State of Louisiana Ellen Daigle Doskey Houma LA Bertha M Hillman Thibodaux LA Counsel for DefendantAppellant Conrad Joseph Chiasson BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WHIPPLE J Defendant Conrad Joseph Chiasson was charged by grand jury indictment with aggravated rape a violation of LSAR 14 Count One S 42 4 A molestation of a juvenile a violation of LSAR 14 Count Two S 81 2 aggravated oral sexual battery a violation of LSA R 14 Count Three S 43 4 and molestation of a juvenile a violation of LSA R 14 Count Four S 81 2 Defendant entered a plea ofnot guilty to all counts After a jury trial the jury determined that the defendant was guilty as charged on all counts The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to a term of life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence for his conviction for aggravated rape Count One The trial court further sentenced defendant to a term of ten years at hard labor for his conviction for molestation of a juvenile Count Two twenty years at hard labor for his conviction of aggravated oral sexual battery Count Three to be served without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence2 and ten years at hard labor for his conviction of molestation of a juvenile Count Four with the sentences for Counts Two Three and Four to run consecutively to each other and concurrently with Count One Defendant appeals citing the following as error The trial court erred in overruling defendant s objection to photographs which were not relevant and were more prejudicial than probative Finding no error we affirm defendant sconvictions and sentences FACTS This statute was repealed by 2001 La Acts No 301 the offenses See LSA R 15 S 301 1 2 2 but was in effect at the time of A L lived with her parents in a small apartment complex in Terrebonne Parish until she completed the fourth grade Also living in the complex were S G and her family and defendant and his wife Defendant was a relative of both L A and S families s G A L and S often played together and would visit G s defendant apartment on a regular basis According to L trial testimony when she was approximately seven s A years old she would visit defendant at his apartment During this time period defendant would initiate a card game called high card card where he and L low A would turn over a card and whoever had the lowest card would remove an article of clothing L described how the very first time she played this game with A defendant they both ended up naked with defendant pulling her into his bedroom A L further described how defendant and kissing her in her vaginal area vaginally raped her during this episode despite her efforts to resist it A L stated that the defendant vaginally raped her between five and twelve times during the time she lived next door to him Out of fear L never reported A these incidents to law enforcement until she was a college student in 2008 As an example of how defendant used fear to ensure her silence L testified that once A as she tried to fight defendant off he put a knife in the wall next to her head L A was eight years old at the time A L further described how she and S would play hide and seek with the G person who was the counter having to stay in defendant sapartment During the time she was counting in the apartment defendant would molest her by fondling her and making her touch his penis The victims initials are used pursuant to LSA R 46 S 1844 W A L was born on July 31 1989 G S was born on November 13 1990 3 A L testified she was sure defendant had used his penis to penetrate her vagina because she remembers the pain Under cross examination L explained A that it wasn a pain that I was used to not like I go to the doctor and get a shot t pain It was like something that I wasn familiar with t G S testified that she lived in the same complex as defendant until she completed the third grade G S testified that defendant would molest her by touching her vagina underneath her clothing during games of hide and seek with A G L S testified that defendant would sometimes spit on his finger and put it in her vagina during the episodes where he would molest her S explained that G sometimes defendant would invite her to his apartment to play video games then proceed to molest her S was afraid to tell anyone about defendant actions out G s of fear he would hurt her and because he told her it was a secret On April 21 2008 Dawn Foret a detective with the Terrebonne Parish s Sheriff Office was assigned to investigate sexualabuse allegations against defendant Foret met with L and S after being assigned the case On April A G 29 2008 defendant voluntarily met with Foret At trial the State played the audiotape of defendant statement given to s Foret on April 29 2008 During this statement defendant admitted engaging in sexual encounters with S and L when they resided at the same complex G A Defendant acknowledged he fondled both L and S and performed oral sex on A G A L However defendant denied engaging in vaginal sexual intercourse with L A and claimed to have only rubbed his penis on her vagina Defendant admitted he had used KY jelly to decrease friction but maintained that he never penetrated A L Defendant estimated that he fondled L approximately once a week during A a twoyear period and that he fondled S approximately five times during a one G year period Defendant did not testify at trial 0 ADMISSION OF PHOTOGRAPHS In his sole assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine seeking to exclude the State use of photographs s depicting L and S at the ages that the offenses occurred A G The trial court denied the motion finding the photographs were relevant and had probative value In his brief defendant acknowledges that he was guilty of aggravated oral sexual battery and molestation of both L and S Thus defendant notes that the only A G issue before this court is whether the State proved he was guilty of aggravated rape Noting the conflicting accounts wherein L testified defendant vaginally A raped her and defendant own taped statement to the police that he never s attempted to penetrate defendant argues that the photographs of the victims as children were not relevant because they had no tendency to establish whether penetration occurred Defendant also presents factual arguments in support of his contention that the photographs unfairly prejudiced him by eliciting sympathy for the victims Louisiana Code of Evidence article 403 provides that otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice confusion of the issues or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay or waste of time Photographs that illustrate any fact shed light upon any fact or issue in the case or are relevant to describe the person place or thing depicted are generally admissible provided their probative Specifically defendant argues that the jury obviously had a difficult time determining his guilt of aggravated rape because after deliberations began the jury requested a written list of definitions for aggravated rape and lesser offenses and after receiving such deliberated for approximately one more hour before determining he was guilty of aggravated rape Moreover defendant argues the photographs were unduly prejudicial given the lack of physical evidence supporting the offense lack of evidence L suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome A common to many child rape victims and the fact that despite this pattern of abuse by defendant A L continued to voluntarily go to defendant sapartment 5 value outweighs any prejudicial effect State v Brunet 950340 p 3 La App 1St Cir 4 674 So 2d 344 346 writ denied 961406 La 11 681 So 2d 96 30 96 1 1258 A defendant cannot control the State method of proof In a criminal s prosecution the State has the burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt A defendant may not exclude from the jury consideration s relevant evidence concerning a crime merely by offering to stipulate State v Tabor 2001 1638 p 16 La 1 838 So 2d 729 744 745 cert denied 540 03 14 S U 1103 124 S Ct 1036 157 L Ed 2d 886 2004 Moreover the State cannot be robbed of the moral force of its case merely because the stipulation is offered State v Ball 990428 p 10 La 11 756 So 2d 275 280 The trial court 99 30 s admission of photographs will not be overturned on appeal unless the reviewing court finds that the photographs are so inflammatory as to overwhelm the jurors reason and lead them to convict the defendant without sufficient other evidence See State v Berry 951610 p 16 La App 1 Cir 11 684 So 2d 439 454 96 8 writ denied 97 0278 La 10 703 So 2d 603 97 In the present case the photographs at issue depict L and S as they A G appeared during the time period in which these offenses were committed The use of these photographs was probative of the age of the victims and the size discrepancy between the victims and the defendant We note L testimony s A included several references to her attempts to fight defendant away despite the fact she was much smaller than the defendant Moreover we note that in a prosecution involving sexual offenses committed against a minor the age of the victim is not only an element of the offense but is also an integral part of the moral force of the s State case Thus these photographs had probative value that outweighed any prejudicial effect This portion of the assignment of error is without merit 0 We further reject defendant suggestion that these photographs improperly s bolstered L credibility where there was no other evidence to support her s A allegation that defendant had penetrated her vagina during the incidents where he participated in sexual conduct with her As noted above the photographs were properly admitted Therefore they did not improperly bolster the credibility of the victim Furthermore the trier of fact is free to accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness 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 Thus the trier of fact determination of the weight to be given evidence is not s subject to appellate review An appellate court will not reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder determination of guilt State v Taylor 97 2261 pp 5 6 s La App 1 Cir 9 721 So 2d 929 932 In sum we are constitutionally 98 25 precluded from acting as a thirteenth juror in assessing what weight to give evidence in criminal cases See State v Mitchell 99 3342 p 8 La 10 00 17 772 So 2d 78 83 The fact that a record contains evidence that conflicts with the testimony accepted by a trier of fact does not render the evidence accepted by the trier of fact insufficient State v Quinn 479 So 2d 592 596 La App l sr Cir 1985 While there was no physical evidence to prove the rape had occurred nor evidence presented to show that L had been diagnosed with a psychiatric A condition following the abuse by defendant such evidence is not necessary to prove the defendant committed aggravated rape The testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense State v Orgeron 512 So 2d 467 469 La App 1 Cir 1987 writ denied 519 So 2d 113 La 1988 The jury s 7 guilty verdict on the count of aggravated rape indicates the jury accepted L s A version of what occurred and rejected defendant sversion This portion of the assignment of error is also without merit CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED
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.
