Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-04-2020
Case Style:
STATE OF LOUISIANA Vs. ORLANDO DEMOND MORRIS CHARLES
Case Number: KA -0019-0745
Judge: JOHN E. CONERY
Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney: John F. DeRosier
District Attorney
Hope Buford
Assistant District Attorney
Elizabeth Brooks Hollins
Assistant District Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Call 918-582-6422 for free help finding a great criminal defense lawyer.
Description:
 |
The State alleged that between 5:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. on October 23, 2017,
Defendant walked up behind the victim on a public street, coerced the victim at
knifepoint onto a vacant lot, and forced the victim at knifepoint to perform oral sex
upon him. A nearby witness called 911, enabling the police to respond while the
attack was still ongoing. Defendant ran when he saw police and was apprehended
less than a block away. Within minutes of the attack, the victim positively identified
Defendant as her attacker.
A grand jury charged Defendant with one count of first-degree rape, a
violation of La.R.S. 14:42, and one count of second-degree kidnapping, a violation
of La.R.S. 14:44.1. After a three-day jury trial beginning December 12, 2018,
Defendant was found guilty of both counts. On March 19, 2019, the trial court
denied a Motion for New Trial filed by Defendant. The following day the trial court
discussed the appropriate sentence on the first-degree rape conviction, but failed to
actually impose sentence on that charge. The trial court imposed a twenty-five year
2
hard labor sentence on Defendant for the second-degree kidnapping conviction but
failed to specify which portion of that sentence, in whole or in part, must be served
at hard labor without benefits as required by La.R.S. 14:44.1(C).
Defendant objected at sentencing and subsequently filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of Sentence that was denied by the trial court without a hearing on
April 29, 2019. Defendant also filed a Motion for Out-of-Time Appeal that was
granted by the trial court on April 29, 2019.
Defendant assigns the following as error:
[1.] The State failed to sufficiently prove that [Defendant] was guilty
as charged.
[2.] The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the
suggestive out-of-court, show-up identification. The circumstances
here show a substantial likelihood of misidentification. A new trial
should be granted.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Errors Patent
In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for
errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find there
are errors patent, which Defendant raises as his own “Error Patent 1.”
Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to impose a sentence on
either count; thus, the sentences must be vacated, and the case remanded for
resentencing. In particular, Defendant contends the trial court failed to actually
impose a sentence for the first-degree rape conviction and failed to clearly state how
much time was to be served without benefits for the second-degree kidnapping
conviction. In its brief, the State acknowledges that the trial court failed to impose
a sentence for the first-degree rape conviction.
3
At sentencing, the trial court stated the following:
THE COURT:
Thank you. Let the defendant rise. Let the record reflect the
Court, as Defense Counsel suggested, is mandated under Louisiana
law, under Louisiana R.S. 14:42, First-Degree Rape:
“Whoever commits the crime of first-degree rape
shall be punished by life imprisonment at hard labor
without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of
sentence.”
Again, as the defendant has learned through this trial, Mr.
Charles, that Louisiana law is a solemn expression of legislative will.
So, this Court is mandated under law that, if a jury of your peers or a
jury chosen by the State and by counsel, has made a decision, they
have decided your fate under Louisiana law.
As it relates to the second charge conviction - - that’s 14:44.1,
Second Degree Kidnapping, the statute reads in pertinent part:
“Whoever commits the crime of second-degree
kidnapping shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less
than five nor more than forty years. At least two years of
the sentence imposed shall be without benefit of parole,
probation, or suspension of sentence.”
The Court, having considered the matter and having followed
the lead in this conviction by a jury of your peers, the Court is going
to sentence Mr. Orlando Charles to 25 years at hard labor, and that
sentence shall run concurrent with the life sentence imposed for firstdegree rape.
This court agrees with Defendant and the State that the trial court failed to
impose a sentence for first-degree rape. Thus, we remand for the trial court to
impose a sentence for first-degree rape. See, e.g., State v. Coward, 18-951 (La.App.
3 Cir. 6/5/19) (unpublished opinion) (2019 WL 2366740). The trial court is
reminded that the sentencing guidelines of La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 should be
articulated and that if a downward departure from the mandatory life sentence is
argued by Defendant, it should make such findings as may be warranted by the law
and evidence. See id.
4
Defendant also claims that the trial court failed to state how much time is to
be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on the
second-degree kidnapping charge. This court discussed this identical issue in the
case of State v. Ourso, 10-1133, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/11), 67 So.3d 684, 685-86,
explaining in pertinent part: “[W]here the statute gives the trial court discretion as
to the number of years imposed to be served without benefits, the reviewing court
should vacate the illegally lenient sentence and remand for resentencing.”
Likewise, and as seen by the sentencing transcript in this case, the trial court
failed to specify the amount of time Defendant’s sentence for second-degree
kidnapping is to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of
sentence. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed for the conviction of
second-degree kidnapping pursuant to La.R.S. 14:44.1 and remand this matter for
resentencing on that charge. The trial court is instructed to specify the amount of
time to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant alleges the evidence was insufficient to prove his identity as the
perpetrator of the crimes charged. In particular, he challenges the victim’s in-field
identification of him as her attacker as well as the reliability of DNA evidence
connecting him to the attack. When the issues on appeal relate to both sufficiency
of the evidence and one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first
determine the sufficiency of the evidence. The rationale is that when the entirety
of the evidence is insufficient to support a defendant’s conviction, the defendant
must be discharged as to that crime, and any other issues become moot. State v.
Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992). Accordingly, this court will first address the
sufficiency of the evidence.
5
The standard of review in a case of identification is well-established:
“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, an appellate court in Louisiana is controlled by the
standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). . . .
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a
rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676,
678 (La.1984). Furthermore, when the key issue is the defendant’s
identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was
committed, the State is required to negate any reasonable probability
of misidentification. State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), 931 So.2d
297; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649. Positive
identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction.
Weary, 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311; Neal, 00-0674 at p. 11, 796
So.2d at 658; State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1311 (La.1988). It is
the factfinder who weighs the respective credibility’s of the witnesses,
and this court will generally not second-guess those determinations.
State v. Bright, 98-0398, p. 22 (La.4/11/00), 776 So.2d 1134, 1147.
State v. Hughes, 05-992, pp. 5-6 (La. 11/29/06), 943 So.2d 1047, 1051 (alteration
in original).
Testimony and Evidence Submitted at Trial by the State
The first witness to testify at trial was the witness to the attack, Deneetra
Shawanna Jack. On October 23, 2017, Ms. Jack stepped out of her house at
approximately 4:50 a.m. to go get doughnuts for her daughter. Ms. Jack called 9111
when she saw something suspicious on Boston Alley,
2 across from her home.
According to Ms. Jack, it was dark but the lights of a nearby funeral home were on.
Ms. Jack saw a woman (identified later as the victim) walking down the street with
a person (identified later as Defendant) walking behind her. Ms. Jack described the
1 Two discs (State’s Exhibit 1 and 2) were played for the jury in conjunction with the 911
call.
2 This path is referred to in the record as “Boston Street,” “Boston Aly,” and “Boston
Alley.” This opinion references “Boston Alley” as the most likely correct spelling of the street
in question.
6
suspicious person walking behind the victim as a “shadow.” When Ms. Jack saw
the “shadow” pull the woman by her ponytail, Ms. Jack went into her residence,
called 911, and watched through a window. Ms. Jack saw a man drag the victim in
front of her residence and cross the street to an open field. According to Ms. Jack,
the man was wearing all black, with all but his eyes being covered by a black mask.
Ms. Jack could not tell the 911 operator whether the man was black, Hispanic, or
white. When she gave a statement to police, Ms. Jack stated that she thought the
man was white or Hispanic. At trial, Ms. Jack described the man as tall, about 6ʹ2ʺ,
and slender.
When asked what she saw once the pair got to the field, Ms. Jack testified:
“She goes down, he’s down. And I thought he was killing her, that’s why I told
911 he was killing her. He gets up, pants drops, and she’s still on the ground.” Ms.
Jack saw the man rubbing his behind and moving. Ms. Jack testified that she was
able to clearly see what was happening across the street. Ms. Jack estimated that
Defendant and his victim were located in the field four or five minutes before an
officer arrived, at which time the man took off running with his pants down.
When asked where the man ran, Ms. Jack testified that he ran behind some houses.
Ms. Jack stated that the woman got up and went to stand by the officers.
The victim, C.C.,
3
testified next and stated that she left her house a few
minutes after 5:00 a.m. on the day in question to walk to a nearby bus stop, just as
she does every morning. On the morning in question, the victim was walking when
someone grabbed her hair from behind. The victim “kind of turned and looked,”
seeing that the person’s nose and mouth were covered with a black face mask.
3
In accordance with La.R.S. 46:1844(W), the victim’s initials are used in order to protect
her identity.
7
According to the victim, the person told her to walk and threatened to kill her. The
person forced the victim to walk to an empty lot. The victim described the events
that ensued as follows:
A. He was threatening me. He was going to kill me, beat me,
and when he got me on that property I did not want to do
what he wanted me to do. I told him I would give him
Five Dollars ($5.00) for him to leave me alone. He
wouldn’t accept that. He had - - he put me down on my
knees. He had his fist toward my head, and he had a knife
in my neck. And he - - yeah, he said, “If you don’t do it
I will kill you.”
Q. And what did he want you to do?
A. He wanted me to put his penis in my mouth. He forced it.
The victim further testified that the attacker had a “red burgundy” knife that
he held to her neck. The victim was in close proximity to the attacker and described
the pants he was wearing as black sweatpants. The victim testified that Defendant’s
nose and mouth were covered by a black mask. The only facial features visible
were his eyes. The victim was able to see the attacker’s skin color on his hands and
told police that he was black. The victim testified that she was forced to put the
attacker’s penis in her mouth because he held a knife to her neck, a fist toward her
head, and threatened to kill her if she did not.
The police arrived within a few minutes of the initial attack, and the man
started running. The victim ran to the police and said, “black man.” The victim
testified that she did not know the man. According to the victim, she got into the
police car and rode with the officers until they were quickly able to locate and
apprehend a suspect. The police put a powerful light on a person, and the victim
told the police, “That’s him.” When asked how she was able to identify the man as
her attacker, the victim replied, “I saw his pantses [SIC]. His black pantses [SIC]
8
that he had on, the sweat looking pantses [SIC]. Black.” The victim further stated
that the man in police custody matched the description of Defendant she gave the
officers because the man was tall and was wearing black sweatpants. When asked
whether she had any doubt that the man she identified was her attacker, the victim
responded that she “had no doubt at all[.]”
The victim testified that she saw no other black males in the area and that her
identification of the attacker took place only a few minutes after the attack. The
victim explained that she did not go to the hospital because her attacker did not cut
her. The victim did, however, wash her mouth out with soap and water.
On cross-examination, the victim testified that she knew the reason she was
getting into the police car was to try to identify the suspect. When asked if the
police ever showed her a line-up of different people, the victim replied that they did
not.
On re-direct examination, the victim was shown State Exhibit (S-5) and asked
if the clothing worn by the man in the photo depicted the clothing worn by her
attacker. The victim did not remember the shirt but did recognize the pants. The
victim identified State Exhibit (S-6) as a knife, but did not know if it was the same
knife used by her perpetrator. The victim remembered that the knife held to her
neck was a “red burgundy” knife but did not see how long the blade was. She
testified that the pants depicted in S-5 were the same pants worn by the person who
attacked her. Finally, the State asked the victim if there was anyone else in the area
that fit the description of her attacker other than the person in the spotlight. The
victim replied, “It was just him, and I saw only him.”
Officer John Littleton of the Lake Charles City Police Department testified
that his shift started on October 23, 2017 at 5:30 in the morning. As he was
9
preparing to go into the police department building, he heard a dispatch call
regarding a possible rape in progress a few blocks away. Due to the exigency of
the situation, Officer Littleton went to the scene of the possible rape without going
inside the police station to get his body camera. As he was arriving at the scene,
Officer Littleton received a dispatch that the possible suspect was running
eastbound. Officer Littleton spoke with the victim, who described her attacker as a
tall man wearing black. While another officer stayed with the victim, Officer
Littleton began his pursuit of the suspect. When asked how far he got in his pursuit,
Officer Littleton answered:
A. I made it just to the next street, which is to Franklin Street.
At that time, I looked north, or to my left, and didn’t
observe anything. I looked to my right, which is south,
and when I looked south, I observed more of our units that
were going in the area. Coming north, one of those
officers was Corporal Magee, and he advised me that
when I was looking south he observed a subject run
westbound across the street. So, they pursued that lead
and ended up going out and detaining the subject.
Officer Littleton went back to the victim, who gave him more information
regarding the description of the suspect. The victim told the officer that the subject
was a tall male, wearing all black, and a ski type mask. The victim further stated
that the subject put a knife to her throat and forced her to perform oral sex on him.
Since the subject was found in close proximity to the crime and matched the
description given by the victim, the subject was detained. Relaying information
back and forth, the officers detaining the subject asked the victim to describe the
knife that was being held to her neck. The victim stated only that the knife was
burgundy. The victim further stated that she could tell the attacker was black by
looking at his hands.
10
Officer Littleton then drove the victim in his vehicle for a short distance to
the location of the suspect to see if she could identify the subject being detained as
the person that attacked her. Officer Littleton explained the procedure utilized in
drive-by identifications, indicating that the subject is faced in one direction, and the
victim is driven by while a spotlight is shined in the subject’s face. Officer Littleton
told the victim that he needed to see if she could identify the subject as her attacker
or not. According to Officer Littleton, he drove the victim by the subject very
slowly and asked whether she could clearly see the subject. Officer Littleton
testified the victim stated that she could see the person and without hesitation stated,
“That’s him.” The victim was then taken to the police station to give a formal
statement.
On cross-examination, Officer Littleton testified that the victim did say her
attacker was black, but did not specify whether her attacker was light or darkskinned and did not mention any tattoos on her attacker’s face, which she had
previously stated was covered by a black mask except for the eyes. Although the
victim stated her attacker was wearing all black, she did not state whether her
attacker’s shirt was long-sleeved or short-sleeved. The victim also failed to describe
the type of material of her attacker’s pants and failed to state whether the pants had
buttons or an elastic waistband. Officer Littleton identified Defense Exhibit A as a
photograph with an accurate representation of Defendant on the morning of the
incident. Officer Littleton agreed that the photo showed Defendant with tattoos on
his face, particularly underneath each eye.
On re-direct, the following colloquy took place:
Q. Officer Littleton, how far was it from your scene - - where
you came into contact with the victim, how far was that
11
to where - - from where you brought her to do the
identification?
A. Maybe a block, maybe a little less. A total of one block.
Q. So, would you say it was close?
A. Very. In the immediate area.
Q. Once you arrived on scene did you see anybody else
wandering around, walking around in the area?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. At the time that you drove by to do the identification did
you see anybody walking around in the area other than
the officers and the suspect; but was there anybody else
around in the area?
A. There was [sic] no civilians or anything like that on the
road, or walking around.
Corporal Tony Ryan Magee, a patrol officer with the Lake Charles City
Police Department, testified that he was scheduled to start his shift on October 23,
2017 at 5:30 in the morning. On his way to the department, Corporal Magee heard
a dispatch regarding a rape in progress. Corporal Magee decided to immediately
respond to the call instead of first going to the department to pick up his body
camera. Corporal Magee and other responding officers began trying to set up a
perimeter to contain the suspect. When asked what he saw when he arrived,
Corporal Magee stated that he saw a “tall black male cross [the street] from east to
west running west.” According to Corporal Magee, the man was running through
yards. Corporal Magee drove his unit to Mill Street, where he re-encountered the
running man. When asked if he lost sight of him for a moment, Corporal Magee
stated that he did lose sight of him because the man was running through yards.
Upon coming into contact with the man on “Mill Street and Boston Al[le]y,”
Corporal Magee began giving the man commands to walk toward him. According
12
to Corporal Magee, the man was running through a business parking lot when he
was stopped by police. The man walked quickly to Corporal Magee, “rambling on
about someone . . . chasing him with a gun.” Corporal Magee described the man as
being sweaty and out of breath and did not see anyone chasing the man. Corporal
Magee testified that the location at which he came into contact with the suspect was
a half a block away from the victim’s location when the initial call to police was
made.
Not wanting to take any chances, Corporal Magee placed the man in
handcuffs. The clothing worn by the man - black sweater or hoodie and dark
clothing - matched the description of the suspect. When asked about what his
discussion with the suspect, Officer Magee explained:
A. When he - - when he - - before I asked him anything he
kept saying, “Someone is chasing me with a gun.” And I
asked him why he didn’t stop any of the several officers
that he passed when he was running through yards and
tell them that. He said he didn’t see any, which I find it
odd that he didn’t. He was yards away from marked
police units parked on the roadway whenever I saw him
running.
Corporal Magee testified that the man’s name was Orlando, and the corporal
identified Defendant as the man he detained on the night in question. After
obtaining the man’s consent, Corporal Magee began patting the man down for
weapons and asked Orlando if he had any weapons. Orlando replied that he had a
knife. Corporal Magee subsequently found a knife, a black Velcro mask, and a
black “durag,” in his possession. Corporal Magee identified S-7 as the knife found
in the man’s back right pocket and identified S-8 as the black face wrap and “durag”
found in the man’s front pocket. Corporal Magee further testified that one of the
other officers asked Officer Littleton if the victim could describe the knife used by
13
her attacker. According to Corporal Magee, the victim’s description of a red or
burgundy knife matched the description of the knife found on Orlando’s person.
Another policeman on the scene, Officer Padilla, did have a body camera and
recorded the victim’s identification of the suspect. After Corporal Magee identified
S-9 as the body camera video footage, it was admitted into evidence and published
to the jury. Corporal Magee arrested the suspect when the victim positively
identified Defendant as her attacker. The suspect was taken to the hospital where
an examination was performed using a SANE kit.
4
The nurse swabbed the suspect’s
mouth and penis and collected his underwear
On cross-examination, Corporal Magee agreed that each time he saw the
suspect running, the suspect was running from east to west. Corporal Magee
acknowledged that someone else stated the suspect was running eastward. When
Corporal Magee saw the suspect running, the suspect was twenty to twenty-five
yards away from another officer standing in the roadway. The other officer’s
marked unit was right next to him. Corporal Magee agreed that his narrative report
stated that he observed the suspect run across the road “no more than 50 yards from
a marked police unit.” Finally, Corporal Magee testified that the “CAD call
printout[,]”
5
introduced as Defense Exhibit B, showed the suspect spent a good two
hours at the police department before he was taken to Lake Charles Memorial
4 Exhibit S-10, a “Waiver of Medical Privilege,” indicates that a subject undergoing the
SANE examination acknowledges that “a Forensic Nurse Examiner, also known as Sexual
Assault Nurse Examiner [SANE], will conduct a nursing Forensic Medical Exam for evaluation
and documentation of injuries and collection of evidence.” Such “consent and waiver authorizes
a Forensic Medical Exam to be done, including, but not limited to an evidence collection kit,
photo documentation, blood and urine samples for the purposes of DNA, drug and alcohol testing.
It also authorizes the release of records, evidence and photographs taken to the appropriate law
enforcement, child protection, child advocacy and prosecuting agencies.”
5 Both Officer Littleton and Corporal Magee testified without specificity as to the CAD
call printout and described it generally as a dispatch log which included information transmitted
over the police radio.
14
Hospital for the SANE exam. Corporal Magee acknowledged that this testimony
was different than what he testified to on direct and acknowledged that “nobody’s
memory is perfect.”
On re-direct examination, Corporal Magee testified that even though it was
cold on the morning in question, Defendant was sweating when the corporal first
came into contact with him.
Other Crimes Evidence
The State introduced other crimes evidence through the testimony of Lecia
McCullough, a lieutenant with the Lake Charles Police Department. On May 19,
2006, Lieutenant McCullough was a detective with the Lake Charles Police
Department and was involved in an investigation regarding the Defendant.
Lieutenant McCullough described the investigation as follows:
A. I was a detective on call. About 4:10, 4:11 that morning
I got called in reference to an attempted kidnapping at 171
and Colletta in Lake Charles. I responded to the scene,
met with the initial officers and the victim. At that time I
spoke to the victim[.] I spoke to her. She advised that
she was walking to work down 171. At the service station
at 171 and Highway 90 she was approached by a black
male in a blue Corsica and asked if she wanted a ride. She
says, “No, I’m good with walking.” So, she just kept
walking. As she’s walking she gets close to Colletta and
171. She hears footsteps running up behind her, at which
time she was grabbed from behind.
She fought with him, she looked and she seen it was the
same black male that was in the blue Corsica. She tries
to go for a knife - - I’m sorry, box cutter that she keeps in
her pocket. As she’s attempting to get it out of her pocket
the black male also has a knife. They’re struggling and
she’s able to get her box cutter out, and he knocks it out
of her hand. She’s struggling with him over his knife and
her hand gets cut. She’s able to take his knife away from
him.
During the struggle she’s punched in the jaw by the black
male. She’s - - she then says she goes to cooperate with
15
him so she doesn’t get stabbed. So, she’s - - she won’t
cooperate and he’s just saying “Get in my car. Get in my
car.” So, when she gets the knife she stabs him in the leg.
She falls to the ground with his knife. He started
screaming, “You stabbed me. Let me go.” So, she just
lays on the ground with his knife and he says, “Give me
my knife. Give me my knife.” She says no and she
refuses to give it to him and he takes off running.
According to Lieutenant McCullough, the officers were notified by Lake
Charles Memorial Hospital that a black male came in with a stab wound. Officers
went to the hospital and spoke with Defendant, who claimed to not know who
stabbed him. While at the hospital, the victim identified Defendant as the person
who attacked her. After speaking with his mother, Defendant told the police he
attacked the victim because he was hungry and on drugs.
Lieutenant McCullough identified Defendant in court as the same defendant
in the 2006 attack. Finally, she testified that Defendant pled guilty to second-degree
kidnapping on March 28, 2007.
Returning to the incident at issue in the present case, the next witness
presented was Jeffrey Atkinson, a detective at the Lake Charles Police Department,
who testified that he worked the graveyard shift on October 23, 2017 and was on
duty at the time of the 911 call in this case. Detective Atkinson responded to the
incident in question, first speaking with the victim and then speaking with the
apprehended suspect. According to Detective Atkinson, the victim described the
knife used by her attacker as having a burgundy handle. Detective Atkinson saw a
burgundy-handled knife, a “durag,” and “some sort of wrap” at the scene where
Defendant was arrested. As noted above, Corporal Magee had also testified that he
discovered a knife, “black velcro mask … and a black durag” while searching
Defendant. After those objects were collected by Corporal Magee, Evidence
16
Officer Jessica Single photographed them and maintained them for purposes of
preserving the chain of custody. Corporal Magee identified the objects at trial and
all were placed in evidence. Those exhibits were published to the jury.
After Defendant was arrested, Detective Atkinson went to the police
department and interviewed the victim and Ms. Jack, the witness who made the 911
call. Meanwhile, another officer collected DNA evidence from Defendant. A few
days later, DNA evidence was collected from the victim and was subsequently
admitted at trial as S-27, the results of which are discussed below.
Defendant was taken to the police station to give a recorded statement. The
statement was admitted into evidence as S-26, and transcripts of the statement were
published to the jury. In the statement, Defendant denied involvement in the offense
and claimed that he was walking to work. In the statement, Defendant claimed that
he had walked from Fifth Avenue and was on his way to his place of employment
- Carboline. Although Defendant was usually given a ride from a co-worker,
according to Defendant’s statement, the co-worker could not give him a ride on the
morning in question because the co-worker spent the night with his sister in Moss
Bluff. Defendant claimed in his recorded statement that he left his house about 4:00
a.m. and that he texted his girlfriend when he crossed major intersections on his
route. Defendant asserted the knife he carried on his person was for personal
protection and described the knife as a red, burgundy color. According to
Defendant, the wrap and “durag” he carried were to protect his hair at work, not for
his face.
As for the 2006 incident, Defendant claimed in his statement that he was
trying to collect money from selling drugs. Defendant denied having a knife in the
2006 incident and claimed that the victim stabbed him with her own knife.
17
After Defendant gave the police permission to search his phone in his
statement, Defendant showed the police the text messages he sent his girlfriend
when he crossed major intersections. Defendant agreed that the last text he sent
was at 5:09 a.m. The police stated Defendant was arrested shortly after 5:26 a.m.
Defendant asserted that he did not continue texting his girlfriend because he knew
from her lack of response that she had fallen asleep. According to Defendant, he
saw someone that could have been carrying a gun, so he ran, causing him to be
breathing hard when the police stopped him. When asked why he was jumping
fences and running, Defendant denied jumping any fences. Defendant also denied
cutting through anyone’s yard.
When the officer asked Defendant in his statement why he walked all the way
from Fifth Avenue to Broad Street in one hour, but then took nineteen minutes to
walk from Broad Street to Mill Street, Defendant stated that he was tired and slowed
down. Defendant maintained, however, that he started sprinting when he claimed
he was being followed by a person with a gun.
The text messages sent between Defendant and his girlfriend the morning of
the incident were introduced at trial as S-28, S-29, and S-30, and were published to
the jury.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Detective Atkinson if
Defendant could have been perspiring because he had traveled a long distance.
Detective Atkinson replied, “This is true.”
On re-direct, Detective Atkinson agreed that the black Velcro mask or mouth
piece showed to the jury could “very easily” cover up the nose, mouth, and chin.
Detective Atkinson also agreed that when a black piece is put against another black
piece, it could look like one.
18
DNA Evidence
Monica Quaal, the DNA Technical Leader at the Southwest Louisiana
Criminalistics Laboratory, was accepted as an expert in the field of forensic DNA
analysis. Ms. Quaal testified regarding the protocol used to maintain the integrity
of the evidence submitted to the lab.
As to this particular case, Ms. Quaal received Defendant’s SANE kit and
Defendant’s underwear. One of the bags received by Ms. Quaal contained
“referenced buccal swabs” and penile swabs.6
Those items were first received by
the lab on October 25, 2017. According to Ms. Quaal, those items were examined
between October 25 and November 1, 2017. Ms. Quaal collected swabs from the
front inside area of the underwear and collected the penile and buccal swabs. Ms.
Quaal explained that the buccal swabs were cheek swabs. She testified that on
November 24, 2017 the lab received a pocketknife and buccal swabs from the
victim. According to Ms. Quaal, Defendant’s SANE kit and underwear were put
into the freezer before the pocketknife and buccal swabs from the victim were
received.
The State inquired as to recovery of DNA from the penile swab of Defendant.
Ms. Quall responded that “it had two contributors” and that, upon the removal of
Defendant’s DNA, the single source remaining was that of the victim. As for the
swab taken from Defendant’s underwear, Ms. Quaal responded: “[T]he major
contributor matched the profile - - the profile obtained from the buccal swab of [the
victim], and the minor profile matched to . . . the profile obtained from the buccal
swab of Orlando Charles.”
6 On cross-examination, Ms. Quaal explained that reference samples are the buccal swabs.
19
On cross-examination, Ms. Quaal testified that most of what is done in the
DNA laboratory is done by robotics to prevent contamination. According to Ms.
Quaal, the DNA is actually extracted using a robot. Ms. Quaal also testified that no
contamination was found in this case. According to Ms. Quaal, the lab is audited
externally every two years and internally a minimum of every two years to help
combat contamination. Ms. Quaal testified that the lab workers change their gloves
often, decontaminate with bleach, and use sterilized tools. Because Ms. Quaal’s lab
does not collect samples from the crime scene, Ms. Quaal could not testify as to the
safety protocols used by the agency collecting such samples:
A. I can only discuss from when it comes in the lab. Like I
said, we make sure there’s a seal on it. We make sure that
there’s no way for it to be contaminated once it comes
into the laboratory. Crime scene collection,
decontamination, you’d have to ask the agency.
When asked what would happen if a person failed to change gloves between
handling items, Ms. Quaal answered that the DNA from one item could be
transferred to the next, but she is the only person that “did DNA on this case.” Ms.
Quaal testified that she uses a computer program to calculate how the probability
numbers are generated.
On re-direct, Ms. Quaal and the State had the following colloquy as to why
there was no reason to believe any contamination took place in the present case:
Q. And the - - the contamination logs that Mr. Alexander
showed you and that we put in, those come out because
you get you some type of abnormal result, correct?
A. Yes, ma’am. That’s - - so as soon - - like I said, as soon
as we see something that’s not what we’re expecting, a -
- if there’s a peak in the blank, if there’s another peak in
- - in something that shouldn’t be, we’re going to stop and
troubleshoot. And as soon as something like that
happens, we write it up. We’re not going to try to, you
know, hide it from anybody. It’s there. You - - you can
20
go - - you will go look at it, and - - and we explain exactly
how we can troubleshoot it to try and figure out what
might have happened and how we figured that out. So
that’s written on each time that’s happened.
Q. Did that happen in this case?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. And if it had happened, you would have noted it, correct?
A. Yes, ma’am. There would have been something in the
case file. I - - I reviewed, just to prepare for court. I
reviewed the blanks again. Like I said, at - - there was no
- - nothing. There was no peak in amplification either.
So we have no reason to believe there was any type of
contamination.
The State rested its case after all of its evidence was published to the jury.
Testimony and Evidence Submitted at Trial by Defendant
Defendant first presented the testimony of his co-worker at Carboline, Phillip
Chretien. Mr. Chretien testified that industrial paint is made at Carboline, so the
workers wear protective clothing and gloves. Some workers wear a protective
covering or “do-rag” over their hair. Mr. Chretien said that he usually gave
Defendant a ride to work, but he called Defendant the Sunday night before to let
him know that he would not be picking him up the next day, the morning in
question.
Peterina Porter, Defendant’s girlfriend, also testified, explaining that
Defendant worked at Carboline and usually caught a ride with “Mr. Phillip.” Ms.
Porter testified that on the morning of the incident, Defendant left for work at 4:00
or 4:05 a.m. Ms. Porter and Defendant communicated by text after he left because
Defendant always let her know where he was. Ms. Porter explained that Defendant
did not want anyone to accuse him of wrongdoing or of being somewhere he should
not be. Finally, Ms. Porter testified that Defendant did not care for oral intercourse.
21
On cross-examination, Ms. Porter testified that she gave Defendant her knife,
which had a burgundy handle.
Defendant was then questioned by the court outside the presence of the jury
as to his right to testify or not, and Defendant chose not to testify. After the
remaining evidence was published to the jury, the defense rested its case. After
being properly charged by the trial court, the jury began deliberations and
eventually returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of both first-degree rape and
second-degree kidnapping.
Defendant’s Argument Regarding Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant concedes that the victim was raped in a field and taken there
against her will. Defense counsel asserts, however, that the evidence was not
sufficient to prove he committed these crimes, arguing to the jury in his closing
remarks:
The identification of Orlando as the perpetrator was circumstantial at
best. No one, including C.C., saw the perpetrator’s face. The
eyewitness who called 911 admitted she could not see the perpetrator’s
face because of the distance and it being dark outside. There were
various descriptions of a “piece” or “mask” being worn that covered
his face, excluding the eyes. No distinguishing scars or tattoos were
seen, especially considering Orlando has tattoos on his face. No
“particular description of the clothing” was given to police, other than
“black.” The assailant was not caught in the act[;] he fled when police
arrived. The DNA evidence is inherently circumstantial as there are
margins of error and not absolute certainties when dealing with
statistical probabilities. Further, Orlando never admitted to
committing the crime or even having consensual sex with C.C. Thus,
the identification of the suspect was circumstantial.
Defendant now contends on appeal that the victim’s identification of him as
her attacker did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence since the
victim identified him based on his sweatpants, an item of clothing that is worn by
many people and is not unique to Defendant. The knife, Defendant argues, also
22
failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence since it was reasonable
for Defendant to be carrying a weapon for personal protection while walking
through a rough area of Lake Charles at 5:00 a.m. Because Defendant was a
convicted felon, he was prohibited from carrying a gun. Finally, Defendant refutes
the significance of the State’s DNA evidence, asserting that contamination of the
swabs cannot be excluded. Defendant contends that the evidence, rather than
demonstrating his guilt, shows that he was merely on his way to work when he was
stopped by police.
State’s Argument Regarding Sufficiency of the Evidence
The State argues in its reply brief that the evidence clearly showed that
Defendant was the person who grabbed the victim from behind, pulled her by the
hair into a field, pushed her to the ground, held a knife to her throat, and forced her
to perform oral sex on him. The victim identified Defendant by the pants he was
wearing, his height, the face mask he was wearing, the color of his skin on his hands,
and the color of the handle of the knife he was carrying. The victim’s DNA was
found on Defendant’s penis and underwear.
Discussion and Analysis
As noted above, when the sole issue is a defendant’s identity as the
perpetrator rather than whether the offense was committed, “the State is required to
negate any reasonable probability of misidentification.” Hughes, 943 So.2d at
1051. “Positive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a
conviction.” Id.
Given that standard, it is clear that the State presented evidence negating any
reasonable probability of misidentification of Defendant. The police were
immediately summoned to the scene by the eyewitness, who called 911 to report
23
the incident as it was happening. Upon their arrival just minutes after the 911 call,
officers gave immediate chase to a suspect and Defendant was spotted less than a
block away, running through yards. When he was apprehended, he was out of
breath, sweating, and claimed that someone with a gun was chasing him. No one
else, however, was seen in the vicinity. The victim said her attacker was a tall black
male, wearing a black piece over his nose and mouth, wearing black sweatpants,
and carrying a “red burgundy” knife. When Defendant was stopped, it was noted
that he was a tall black male, he was wearing black sweatpants, and he was carrying
a knife with a burgundy handle, a black Velcro mask, and a black “durag.”
In a drive-by field identification just minutes after the attack, the victim
positively identified Defendant as her attacker without any hesitation. She
emphatically stated at trial that she was sure of her identification. Notably, the
victim’s DNA was found on Defendant’s underwear and penis. Finally, the jury
heard evidence that Defendant committed a similar offense in 2006.
As argued by the State, the jury obviously rejected Defendant’s hypothesis
of innocence that he was simply walking to work when the police found him and
that the DNA results were tainted by contamination. This court has stated the
following regarding a jury’s rejection of a defendant’s hypothesis of innocence:
With respect to a jury’s rejection of a hypothesis of innocence, our
supreme court in [State v.] Calloway, [07-2306 (La. 1/21/09),] 1 So.3d
[417] at 422 (citations omitted), concluded:
[W]e have repeatedly cautioned that due process, rational
fact finder test of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99
S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), does not permit a
reviewing court to substitute its own appreciation of the
evidence for that of the fact finder or to second guess the
credibility determinations of the fact finder necessary to
render an honest verdict. A reviewing court may intrude
on the plenary discretion of the fact finder “only to the
extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection
24
of due process of law.” Thus, as Judge Pettigrew
emphasized, when a jury reasonably and rationally rejects
the exculpatory hypothesis of innocence offered by a
defendant’s own testimony, an appellate court’s task in
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence under the Due
Process Clause is at an end unless an alternative
hypothesis “is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror
could not ‘have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.’ ”
The jury’s decision to reject Defendant’s hypothesis regarding the
commission of the crime was based upon its rational credibility and
evidentiary determinations. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict should not
be overturned. Thus, we find that the Defendant’s assignment of error
lacks merit.
State v. Jackson, 14-9, pp. 12-13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/14), 146 So.3d 631, 639, writ
denied, 14-1544 (La. 2/27/15), 159 So.3d 1066.
Likewise, the jury’s rejection of Defendant’s hypothesis of innocence in the
present case was based upon overwhelming evidence as to Defendant’s guilt and
was well within the province of the jury.
Assignment of Error Number Two—Motion to Suppress
Defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the
allegedly suggestive “out-of-court show-up” identification of Defendant by the
victim. Defendant argues the circumstances show a substantial likelihood of
misidentification. Prior to trial, a hearing was held on Defendant’s motion to
suppress the “show-up” identification of Defendant. After hearing the testimony of
Officer Littleton, the testimony of Officer Padilla, and argument by both parties,
the trial court denied the motion by written order on November 15, 2018. Defendant
raised the suppression issue once again in his motion for new trial. After a hearing,
the trial court denied the motion for new trial as well.
25
Jurisprudence—Identification
In State v. Austin, 470 So.2d 406 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1985), this court addressed
the admissibility of a one-on-one show-up identification that occurred at the
sheriff’s office within two-hours of the offense. Finding the identification was
admissible, this court stated:
In reviewing an identification procedure, the court must
determine whether the procedure was so unnecessarily suggestive and
so conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that the defendant
was denied due process. Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct.
2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); State v. Bickham, 404 So.2d 929
(La.1981). A trial judge’s determination on the admissibility of an
identification should be accorded great weight and should not be
disturbed on appeal unless the evidence reveals an abuse of discretion.
State v. Bickham, supra.
The trial court must look to the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the identification procedure. State v. Smith, 418 So.2d
515 (La.1982). While one-on-one confrontations are not favored by
the law, they are permissible when justified by overall circumstances.
State v. Dunbar, 356 So.2d 956 (La.1978). This procedure is usually
employed when the suspect is apprehended within a short time after
the offense and the suspect is returned to the crime scene for on-thespot identification. Prompt in-the-field identifications, under
appropriate circumstances, promote accurate identifications and
expedite the release of innocent suspects. State v. Bickham,supra State
v. Dunbar, supra.
. . . .
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Davis, 409 So.2d 268
(La.1982) discussing Manson v. Braithwaite, supra, stated:
“ . . . reliability is the linchpin in determining the
admissibility of identification testimony. The factors to
be considered include the opportunity of the witness to
view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’
degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description
of the criminal, the level of certainty displayed at the
confrontation, and the time between the crime and the
confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the
corrupting effect of the suggestive identification the
standard, after all, is that of fairness as required by the due
process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In the final
analysis, it must be determined whether under all the
26
circumstances of a particular case there is a very
substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
Id. at 408-09.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s ruling and affirm the trial
judge’s decision to deny the motion to suppress and affirm Defendant’s convictions
of second-degree kidnapping and first-degree rape.
Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s convictions are affirmed.
Defendant’s sentence for second-degree kidnapping is vacated and the case
remanded for resentencing on that charge. The trial court is also instructed to
specify the amount of time that must be served without benefit of parole, probation,
or suspension of sentence for the conviction of second-degree kidnapping. The trial
court is further instructed to impose a sentence for Defendant’s conviction of firstdegree rap
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: