State Of Louisiana VS Quroy Johnson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION TAT C!! OF LO JISIr1NA RT OF APPEAL. FTF2ST IRCIJIT N0. 2013 iCA 0372 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS QUROYJOHNSON I. 1, udgment rendered December 27, 2013. Appealed from the 21 Judicial Distrid Court in and for the Parish of Tangipahoa, Louisiana Trial Court No. 1003073 Honorable Elizabeth P. Wolfe, 7udge HON. SCOTT PERILLOUX r1TTORNEYS FOR DISTRICTATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA LEANNE MALNAR PATRICIA AMOS ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AMITE, LA LIEU T. VO CLARK Al? ORNEY FOR MANDEVILLE, LA DEFENDANT-APPELLANT QUROYJOHNSON BEFORE: PEITIGREW, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, J]. PETTIGREW, 7. The defendan F Quroy c;h ns n, w s tl ar a c ay ra d jury [ ndictment with one count of aggravated s ape, a violation of . a. . 5. 1+: 42; and pled not g i ity. He waived his right to a jury trial and, followir g a bench kriaV, was fa nd uilty of the respansive offense of attempted aggravated rape, a violation of Lao R. S. 14: 27 and La. R. S. 14: 42. He was sentenced to ten years at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. He now appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying the motion for post verdict judgment of acquittaf because the evidence was insu cient to support the conviction. For the following reasons, we afFirm the conviction and sentence. FACTS The victim, J. M., 1 testified her date. of birth is November 22, 1995. On June 18 2008, she was living in the Lincoln Pack area of fHam non with her mother and her mother's boyfriend. While her mother was at vork, J M. went for a walk with her cousin, R. H. While they were walking, J. M. and R. H, encountered the defendant and his brother, " Sean Ray." z The defendant was R.H.' s former boyfriend. One of the men asked R.H. for a hug, and she hugged both men. The men then asked J. M. for a hug and she also hugged them. One of the men asked if the girfs i ould be " walking back around there to come back from [ R.N.' s) house," and they replied affirmative y. Thereafter, R. H. had the idea to go to th ha Qf the meno She went into the home with the defendant, and then w nt into a room writh him. J. M. testified she was grabbed'° by Sean Ray and went into another ro m wi h him. She indicated Sean Ray took his clothes off and started ui dressing her. Sne laimed she told him " No. I don't want to do this." Sean Ray then laid the victim aiouvr o the bedi kissed her on tne neck, and pulled off her panties. Thereafter, he had vaginaf intercours with J. M. The victim is referenced herein only by her initials. See La. R. S. q6: 1844( W). Z Police investigation indicated " Sean Ray" was Shelton Abram. 2 Subsequently, J. M. n toced she was bleedinc when she got up to see what R. H. was After doing. she went panties. Sean Ray; to J. M., the defendank then exite the room to put on her into thE bathroam t > vipe off the blaod, she returned to the J. M. tried to put room. her] back down." or how ia ver ± c n he t l nur According f+ d nt ° told [ her] not to,'° and " laid o; Y i, °°! them off." ad b ero i+ with P2. H. and entered her er oan ies, ba t kh She repeatedly her to " leave cion"t war o it," but he held her t t legs and got on top of her. He put his penis in her, and she felt it " a little bit," pushed him off, and told him she was °'ready to go.°' J. NI. tried to leave. with R. H., but she was doing it" with Sean Ray. J. M. returned to he rn m and fnished getting dressed. She subsequently left the house with R.H. Thereafker, J. M.' s mother "whipped her" with a belt because she thought J. M, had " went over there on [ her] own." J. M. testified she told her mother about what " Shelton" had done, but not about what the defendant had done. She stated she wvas scared, and " didn' t know what to do or how to tell her or anybody else what happene" She indieated she told the doctor but not her mother, what thE defendant hac dorie bec se "[ J. M.] felt more comfortable talking to [ the doctor] while.[ J. M.] was there at th o oment at the time.'° J. M.' s mother testified that on Hammond and Loranger and iet , e r ay of the incident, she_was uvorking between h1. ak a friend's ouse i- Lincoln Park. 5ubseGuently she received a phone cail th t tavo bs ys had pull d he csa aght r and P3. Fi. inr_ a house in o Lincoln Park and were " hev ng sex" ; nn h ther. J. l.' s r other " whi ped her," and then questioned her about what had happen d. 7 1, tald her Shelton Ray Abram had puiled her into a room, taken her clothes off, and °'[ tried] to have sex with her." J. M. did not make any allegations against the defendant. Dr. Yameika Head was accepted by the trial court as an expert in forensic pediatrics. She treated J. M. o o June 18, 2008. J. l, kold Dr. Head that J. M. and R. H. had both been raped. Dr. Head asked J, 1. to explain what she meant by " rape." J. M. indicated she had been " pui(ed nto the house" forcabiy taken into a room, and Sean Ray had put put, or his penis in her vagina. She aiso ir dicated the def ndant d held her down and tried to puE, his penis in her. J. M. had linear lacera tions in her vagina, her hymen was " very d her swollen," a t agin a bl ras in. e s° r Hea udassifsed the findings as definitive for blur t per etr tir q traijma, Harrrm incident. J. M. R. H. had c rta i: dic raa ld p 0 a s arit ,, rc itF! h consen uad se> c de x '; rs r. r y she ? e ac art f a ; o as ; n vestic ated the r u. ai s x v a;th 5!^ eltUn Abram, and a: p i, ls,; h ae1 °? ct l ge thg d rer ant had raped her until approximately one year later. Sergeant Mushinsky aiso interviewed the defendant. The defendant admitted having sex with R.H., but claimed he was unaware of her age. He acknowledged that J. M. was with R. H,, but did not state he had sex nrith J. M. Lisa Ricci was a forensic Df A ar alysC incident. DNA analysis from the rape kit of k he time of the investigation of the R. H. scated that " within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty," the efEC da x vras tne sQUr e af the DNA profrles fror the sperm not be fractions. In re ard ta DNA exciuded as a contrib: tor,i: i testing ne the ; ape kat of 7. M., rmr s r re Fgeo he defendant could ar ining four Ioci, hss c mbined probability af incVusion v as 1 in 28 A rican ,4rn ricar a SUFFICIENGY OF TFI In assignnnent f error nur ber i, EVIDEPICE hE defr nda t argues the triaf court erred an denying the motion for post verdict udgment pf acquittal. In assignment of error number 2, he argues the evidence was insuffci nt to support the convi tion. He combines the assignments of error for arg ment, c ntendiny the S ate failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he engaged on any ty 6 e seacua! Ganduct weth . i. because she did not give consistent aecounts o th incident. The standard of revie for suffciency f h vi nce ta i phcia a convickion is whether, viewing th2 euidence in thE laght mos favora le tq th prqse t+ any rational on, trier of fa k could eo cfude the 5tate roved khe ssert ai eiements of tF e crime and the defendant`s identity e as th perpetrator af that n beyond a reasorrat le doubt, T conducting this review, we a!so must be expressVy nindfuB of Louis a a`s circumstantoal evidence test, which states in part, " assummg ever fact to be , roved that the vidence tends to prove," every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. State v. Wright, 4 98- 0601, p. 2 ( La. App, 1 Cir. 2 19/ 9), 730 So. 2d 485, a3£, writs uenied, 99- 0802 ( La. 10/ 29/ 99), 748 Sa2d I157, 2000- 0895 { La. 11/ 17/ 00), 773 So.2d 732 ( quoting La. R.S. 15: 438). When a conviction is based n both direck and circumstankial evidence, the reviewing court must resoiva any a: onflict in t re direct ev dente by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutian. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established d : he facts reasonably inferred from the the direct evidence by circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational ' uror to conclude be Y ond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guaity of every essential element of the crime. Wright, 98- 0601 at 3, 730 So. 2d at 487. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14: 41; in pertiner t part, provides: Rape is the act of .:. vaginal sexual intercourse with a ... A. female person committed without the person' s lawful consent. B. Emission is not necessary, and any sexual penetration, when the rape involves vaginal ... intercourse, howeVer slight, is sufficient to complete the crime. Louisiana Revised Statues 14: 42, in pertinent part, provides: A. Aggravated rape is a rape committed ... where the ... vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawfui consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the foliowing circumstances: 4) When the victim s under the age of thirteen yea;-s. Lack of knowledge of the victim's ag shall not be a efense. Any person who, having a sPecific intent ta commit a crim, . does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomp4ishing of his objeck is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and, it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have aetually accomplished his purpose. La. R.S. 1427(A). Specific criminal intent is that " state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act." La. R. S. 14: 10( 1). Though intent is a question of fact, it need not be proven as a fact. It may be inferred from the-circumstances of khe transaction, Specific 5. intent may be proven by direct evidencer suci as statements by a defendant, or by inference from circumstantial evgdence, such as a the circumstances. Sp cific intent is an fact finder. State v. Itimate 9egai conclusion ko be resolved by the 9- L44, p. 3 ( Hendierso, efendant's actions or facts depicting a. App. C r, 6/ 23f00), 762 So. 2d 747, 751, writ denied, 2000- 2223 ( La 6/ 15/ O1), 793 So. 2d 1235. Any rational trier of facf, viewing the evid nce presented in this case ln the light most favorable to the State, could find the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, ail of the elements of attempted aggravated rape and the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of that offense against the victim. The conviction indicates the trier of fact found J. M. credible and accepted her explanation for why she delayed naming the defendant as one of her attackers. This court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder's determination af guilt. The testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. The trier of fact may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. Moreover, when there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution ofwhich depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not i s sufFiciency. State v. Lofton, 96- 1429, p. 5 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 27/ 97), 691 So.2d 1365, 1368, writ denied, 97- 1124 ( La. 10/ 17/ 97), 701 So. 2d 11331. Further, in reviewing the evidence, we cannot say that the fact finder's determination was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented. See State v. Ordodi, 2006- 0207, pp. 14- 15 ( La. 11/ 29/ 06), 946 So. 2d 654, 662. An appellate 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, 2007- 2306, pp. 1- 2 La. 1/ 21/ 09), 1 So. 3d 417, 41$ ( per curiam), These assignments of error are without merit. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRME0. 6 :

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.