State Of Louisiana VS Timothy Thibodeaux
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 KA 0146 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS T T T T T Judgment Rendered T T SEP 2 12012 APPEALED FROM THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF LAFOURCHE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 475003 DIVISION A THE HONORABLE JOHN E LEBL JUDGE ANC James D Buddy Caldwell Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee State of Louisiana and Camille A Morvant lI District Attorney and Kristine M Russell Assistant District Attorney Thibodaux Louisiana Frank Sloan Attorney for Defendant Appellant Mandeville Louisiana T T Pro Se Angola Louisiana BEFORE KUIIN PETTIGREW McDONALD AND JJ McDONALD I I Defendant T was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of aggravated rape of a minor C a violation of La R 14 count one T S 42 4 A and with one count of aggravated incest of a minor A a violation of La R T S 1 78 14 count two Defendant pled not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial After a bench trial he was found guilty as charged on both counts Defendant filed a motion for new trial but the trial court denied that motion For his conviction on count one defendant was sentenced to the mandatory tend of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence For his conviction on count two defendant was sentenced to a term of fifty years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence court ordered defendant sentences to be served concurrently s The trial Defendant now two counseled and one pro se appeals alleging three assignments of error For the following reasons we affirm defendant convictions and sentences s FACTS At trial the State presented evidence of defendant offenses primarily s through videotaped interviews of the victims which were conducted at the Lafourche Children Advocacy Center s CAC The evidence supporting sconvictions was included in separate interviews conducted with C defendant T and A on August S 2009 when the victims were in the custody of a foster T parent T C stated during her interview that defendant had inserted his penis into her vagina one night while she was living in her mother trailer s T A stated during her interview that defendant had twice touched her private area with his hands According to A defendant had once touched the outside of her private T area under her underwear T A said that on another occasion defendant inserted At the time of the offenses the victims in this case were approximately six and seven years old In accordance with La K 46 the victims herein are referenced only by their initials To further protect the identity of S 1844 W the victims their family members including defendant are also referenced by their initials 2 A actual initials are also C but she is sometimes referred to by a nickname beginning with the letter A s T T To eliminate confusion we adopt this nickname when referring to A in this case T 2 his finger into her vagina Both C and A stated that these incidents occurred T T prior to their placement into foster care which occurred in late 2007 COUNSELED ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 In his first assignment of error defendant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing him to waive his right to a jury trial Specifically defendant asserts that the trial court erred in granting a jury trial waiver on January 24 2011 a date set for defendant sjury trial because defendant waiver was not made more than s forty five days before that date as is required by La Const art I A 17 Defendant was arraigned on the instant offenses on September 24 2009 On March 18 2010 defendant trial date was set for August 23 2010 but that date s was jointly continued by the State and the defense until January 24 2011 On January 24 2011 defendant filed a motion to waive his jury trial and a simultaneous motion to continue The trial court conducted a colloquy with defendant in order to confirm that this waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made Defendant trial counsel confirmed the jury trial waiver and the prosecutor s expressly declared that she had no objection to the waiver As a result the trial court accepted defendant jury trial waiver granted his request for a continuance s and reset defendant strial date for June 20 2011 Defendant now argues on appeal that the December 1 2010 amendment to La Const art 1 A 17 made an error for the trial court to accept his jury trial waiver on January 24 2011 because defendant trial was set for that date and s accordingly his waiver request was not made more than fortyfive days prior to that date In response the State argues that defendant jury trial waiver was s timely because the trial court continued defendant trial until June 20 2011 when s it accepted his jury trial waiver 3 2010 La Acts No 1053 1 4 We note that this request for a jury trial waiver was made at defendant sfirst court appearance after the passing of 2010 I Acts No 1 1 Because of the reasons set forth in the rest of this opinion we do not decide in this a 053 case whether defendant jury trial waiver was actually timely or untimely under these unique circumstances s 3 A 17 provides Except in capital cases In pertinent part La Const art 1 a defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a trial by jury but no later than fortyfive days prior to the trial date and the waiver shall be irrevocable We need not decide in this case whether a defendant may in effect extend the window for waiving a jury trial by simultaneously requesting a continuance to a date outside the 45 day window By requesting to waive his right to a jury trial when he did defendant also gave up any right to object on timeliness grounds to the trial court grant of that waiver Essentially defendant did not s properly file a contemporaneous objection to this ruling so this matter is not properly before this court as an assignment of error Defendant argues in his brief that this allegedly untimely waiver is an error discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings under La Code Crim P art 920 and that he needed to make no contemporaneous 2 objection at trial We agree with defendant to the extent that this timeliness issue is discoverable under Article 920 However assuming for the sake of this 2 argument that a continuance does not reopen the jury trial waiver window we find that any error with respect to defendant sjury trial waiver is merely a waivable trial error and not a non waivable structural defect In State v Brown 2011 1044 La 3 85 So 52 per curiam the 12 13 3d Supreme Court found an error with respect to jury size to be a waivable trial error and not a structural defect in which defense counsel actively participated in and failed to object to the selection of a twelve person jury instead of a sixperson jury The twelve person jury in Brown ultimately returned a 10 2 verdict finding the defendant guilty which was sufficient to convict the defendant under twelve person jury rules but which did not comport with the unanimous vote rule which applies to a sixperson jury See La Const art 1 A 7 1 La Code Crim P art s The State also acquiesced in this jury trial waiver and did not object to it on timeliness grounds 11 A 782 The court found that it did not need to address whether the error in jury composition actually prejudiced the defendant case because defense counsel s failed to object or to file a motion in arrest ofjudgment on this ground and because there is no longer a supposition that errors in jury composition are invariably The Court cited with approval Justice jurisdictional or structural in nature s Weimer concurrence in State v Jones 2005 0226 La 2 922 So 508 06 22 2d 516 in which he stated that a defendant should not have the opportunity of gambling on a favorable verdict from the larger jury and then resorting on appeal to an error that easily could have been corrected in the trial court at the outset of jury selection Although the instant factual situation differs frorn that in Brown the same underlying principles guide this Court in this case Here defendant requested and was granted a jury trial waiver on a date when his case was set for trial Without deciding whether this error was corrected by the trial court simultaneous granting s of defendant scontinuance we find that defendant cannot raise this issue on appeal as a ground for reversal of his convictions and sentences because he requested and therefore failed to object to this waiver Defendant had a right to be tried by jury s but he also had a concomitant right to waive a trial by jury Even if defendant exercise of this parallel right might have been untimely under La Const art 1 A 17 any such error is not structural in nature and was waived when defendant elected to be tried before the trial judge in a bench trial To allow defendant to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to trial by jury and then to reverse sconvictions and sentences on appeal because of an untimely waiver defendant would be to allow defendant to seek a favorable outcome from the judge and then to resort on appeal to an error that he instigated in the trial court Such an outcome would not be in the interests ofjustice Fhis assignment of error is without merit COUNSELED ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 2 5 In his second counseled assignment of error defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him on count two under the more severe sentencing provision of La R 1 Subsection D because the State failed to cite S 4 78 2 that subsection in defendant sindictment Defendant argues instead that he should have been sentenced under the less severe Subsection D 1 Subsection D of La R 2 S 1 78 14 provides a harsher penalty than Subsection D in cases of aggravated incest where the State has proven that the 1 victim was under the age of thirteen years when the offender is seventeen years of age or older A sentence under La R 14 prior to its amendment by S 78 2 D 1 2008 La Acts No 33 1 carries a sentencing range of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than twentyfive years nor more than life imprisonment with at least twenty five years to be imposed without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence In contrast La R 14 carries the baseline S 78 D 1 penalty of imprisonment with or without hard labor for not less than five years nor more than twenty years or a fine not to exceed fifty thousand dollars or both Sentencing under this provision only requires proof that the victim was under eighteen years of age See La R 14 S 78 A 1 In his brief defendant alleges that his sentence under La R 14 S 78 2 D 1 is improper because the bill of indictment failed to specify this particular subsection of the aggravated incest statute Defendant also alleges that his indictment failed to specify facts sufficient to conclude that the prosecution was brought under subsection D 2 The indictment or bill of information shall be a plain concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged La Code Crim P art 464 When an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice technical sufficiency of the indictment may not be questioned after conviction 6 where no objection was raised to it prior to the verdict and where without unfairness the accused may be protected against further prosecution for any offense or offenses charged by it through examination of the pleadings and the evidence in the instant prosecution State v Gainey 376 So 1240 1243 La 2d 1979 State v James 305 So 514 516 17 La 1 2d 974 In the instant case defendant indictment informed him that he was being s prosecuted for the aggravated incest of A whose date of birth was listed as T September 29 2000 Although the particular sentencing subsection was not cited in defendant indictment defendant was clearly put on notice by the listing of s s T A date of birth that the State intended to prove that defendant committed the aggravated incest of a victim under the age of thirteen years Presumably defendant was aware of his own age at the time of the offense as well As discussed below when we address the sufficiency of the evidence in this case the State proved at trial via several stipulations that defendant was the biological father of A that lie was seventeen years of age or older at the time of the crime and T that A was under thirteen years of age at the time of the crime Mus defendant T was clearly put on notice of the facts the State intended to prove with respect to this offense and the state actually proved those facts at trial Finally we point out that defendant trial was a bench trial s Based on his verdict and subsequent sentencing of defendant under Subsection 13 the trial 2 judge plainly found the facts presented at trial to be sufficient to conclude that defendant committed aggravated incest of A a victim under thirteen years of T age Although the trial judge did not explicitly declare in his oral judgment that he found defendant guilty of this more severe category of aggravated incest he was not specifically asked by either the State or the defense to address this issue either by charging himself with the applicable responsive verdicts or by clarifying his verdict at the time ofjudgment Based on the evidence presented and stipulated to VA at trial and considering that he presided over defendant bench trial the trial s 2 07 1 judge properly sentenced defendant under La R 14 prior to its S 78 amendment by 2008 La Acts No 33 1 and defendant ssentence is not illegal This assignment of error is without merit PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole pro se assignment of error defendant argues that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his convictions of aggravated rape and aggravated incest A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it violates due process See U Const amend X1V La Const art I S 2 In reviewing claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence this court must consider 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 beyond a reasonable doubt See Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 319 99 S 2781 S Ct 2789 61 L 560 1979 2d Ed See also La Code Crim P art 821 State v B Ordodi 2006 0207 La 11 946 So 654 660 State v Mussall 523 06 29 2d 2d So 1305 1308 09 La 1988 The Jackson standard of review incorporated in Article 821 is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct B and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence La R 15 provides that the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence S 438 excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence State v Patorno 2001 2585 La App 1 st Cir 6 822 So 141 144 02 21 2d ravated Agp Rape of C T Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 provides in pertinent part 42 A Aggravated rape is a rape committed upon a person sixtyfive years of age or older or where the anal oral or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it committed under any one or more of the following circumstances is 4 When the victim is under the age of thirteen years Lack of knowledge of the victim age shall not be a defense s Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 provides in pertinent part 41 A Rape is the act of anal oral or vaginal sexual intercourse with a male or female person committed without the person lawful consent s 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 Before defendant trial began the State and defense stipulated to the trial s court that defendant was born on February 3 1980 that he is the biological father of C and that C was born on November 13 1998 T T At trial the State presented two videotaped interviews of C that were conducted at the Lafourche T CAC One interview took place on October 4 2007 immediately following some initial complaints regarding defendant sbehavior towards his minor children and the other took place on August 5 2009 after defendant children had been placed s into foster care In the 2007 interview C stated that she had lied to her mom T about some nasty stuff that defendant did to her and that defendant never actually did anything nasty to her However she did indicate in this interview that defendant had in the past played a pornographic movie for her In the 2009 interview C stated that one night she was in her bed sleeping T when defendant opened her door and came into her room According to C T defendant began to pull his pants down as he approached her bed and then he climbed into her bed with her laid on top of her and started shaking T C stated that she felt her private area burn when she saw defendant place his bird into her vagina C told the interviewer that this behavior had only occurred one T time In this interview C also described other instances of lewd behavior by T defendant According to C she had seen defendant and her mother engage in T sexual intercourse in front of her and her sisters on at least two previous occasions M Further C described two separate instances where defendant defecated and T urinated respectively on her Defendant testified at trial and plainly denied all of C statements s T He stated that he had never engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife in front of the children that he had never defecated or urinated on C and that he had never T exposed himself to his children Defendant also stated that his children may have accidentally began to watch a pornographic movie by their own mistake one day but he immediately stopped it before anything inappropriate could be seen on the screen The trier of fact is free to accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness Moreover where 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 Richardson 459 So 31 38 La App 1 st Cir 1984 The trier of fact 2d s determination of the weight to be given evidence is not subject to appellate review An appellate court will not reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder s determination of guilt State v Taylor 97 2261 La App 1 st Cir 9 721 98 25 2d So 929 932 Further a reviewing court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to and rationally rejected by the fact finder See State v Calloway 20072306 La 1 1 So 417 418 per curiam 09 21 3d In the instant case viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution the evidence was clearly sufficient to support a finding that defendant was guilty of the aggravated rape of C T s T C statements in her second interview were direct evidence that defendant used his penis to penetrate her vagina The trial judge gave extensive oral reasons for his verdict and in doing so he indicated that he 10 found C to be a credible witness who appeared to have been influenced by her T sisters not to reveal wrongdoing before her 2007 interview The trial judge also apparently found credible C description of the incident especially in light of s T her nervousness when talking about the details This portion of the assignment of error is without merit The evidence presented through C 2009 interview was clearly in itself sufficient to support s T the verdict of guilty of aggravated rape and the trial judge found C interview s T to be more credible than defendant stestimony at trial Aggravated Incest of A r Louisiana Revised Statutes 1 provides in pertinent part 78 4 A Aggravated incest is the engaging in any prohibited act enumerated in Subsection B with a person who is under eighteen years of age and who is known to the offender to be related to the offender as any of the following biological step or adoptive relatives child B The following are prohibited acts under this Section 1 Sexual intercourse sexual battery 2 Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child the offender or both Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 43 provides in pertinent part 1 A Sexual battery is the intentional touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender when any of the following occur 1 The offender acts without the consent of the victim In addition to the provisions of La S R 1 78 14 S noted above La R 14 78 provides a greater penalty if the State proves at trial that the victim 2 D 1 was under thirteen years of age and the offender was seventeen years of age or older at the time of the offense As with C it was stipulated before trial that defendant is the biological T T father of A and that A was born on September 29 2000 Also as with C T T the State presented at trial two videotaped interviews of A that were conducted T at the Lafourche CAC on the same dates as C interviews s T In the 2007 interview A stated that no one had ever done anything to hurt T her or that they were not supposed to do T A further stated that no one had ever touched her in a bad way and she had never seen anyone touch anybody else badly not even on television In the 2009 interview A stated that defendant had twice touched her in a T bad way According to A the first time defendant touched her she had been in T her room reading a book A said that defendant came into her room reached T under her skirt pulled down her underwear and touched the outside of her private area with his hands A then told the interviewer that defendant had also touched T her under her clothes and that time he touched her on the inside of her vagina According to A she told her mother about defendant behavior after the second T s incident and her mother told defendant to stop but defendant said Nope T A stated that defendant only touched her on these two occasions and that she never saw defendant touch anyone else that way Defendant also denied these allegations in his trial testimony Again the trial judge found A to be more credible than defendant From T his oral reasons it appears that the trial judge found credibility in the fact that A T did not merely reiterate or claim to witness the version of events described by her sister C but instead described separate instances of lewd conduct by defendant T Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution the evidence presented at trial was clearly sufficient to support a finding that defendant was guilty of the aggravated incest of A under La R 14 First T S 78 2 D 1 the stipulations entered into between the State and defendant support the conclusion that A and defendant were approximately six years old and twenty seven years T I 6 is unclear from A L interview whether this second incident occurred immediately after the first act or whether s it occurred at a later date 12 old respectively at the time of the offense s T A statements in her second interview were direct evidence that defendant used his hands to touch her genitals and A informing her mother about the incident indicates a lack of consent s T The trial judge might also have concluded that defendant touched A with the T intent to arouse his own sexual desires The evidence presented at trial supports either conclusion This portion ofthe assignment of error is without merit For the foregoing reasons we affirm defendant convictions and sentences s CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 13
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.
