State v. Payton

245 So.3d 205

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee

v.Demarcus S. PAYTON, Appellant

No. 51,709–KA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered November 15, 2017

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, By: Peggy J. Sullivan, Monroe, Counsel for Appellant

DANIEL W. NEWELL, District Attorney, CARY T. BROWN, TERESA CULPEPPER CARROLL, Assistant District Attorneys, Counsel for Appellee

Before MOORE, PITMAN, and DREW (Ad Hoc ), JJ.

PITMAN, J.

Defendant Demarcus S. Payton was convicted of aggravated rape, unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling and simple escape. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence for the conviction of aggravated rape; six years at hard labor for the conviction of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling; and five years at hard labor for the conviction of simple escape. The trial court ordered that the sentences for aggravated rape and unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling be served concurrently with each other and that the sentence for simple escape be served consecutively. For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant's convictions and sentences, but order the minute entry amended and remand for compliance with La. R.S. 15:543.

FACTS

On July 17, 2014, Defendant was indicted for aggravated rape, in violation of La. R.S. 14:42 ; unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, in violation of La. R.S. 14:62.3 ; and simple escape, in violation of La. R.S. 14:110(A)(1). The indictment alleged that on or about June 16, 2014, Defendant committed the rape of C.C., made entry without authorization into the inhabited dwelling and home of C.C. and intentionally departed from a place of legal confinement and lawful custody of a law enforcement officer. On August 5, 2014, Defendant entered pleas of not guilty to the charges.

A jury trial commenced on February 29, 2016. During jury selection, the trial court denied four challenges for cause asserted by Defendant.

C.C. testified that in the early morning of June 16, 2014, a man approached her while she was sitting on her front porch. She stated that she had never seen this man before and identified him in open court as Defendant. She further stated that he made inappropriate sexual comments to her, which frightened her. She went inside her house, locked the exterior doors, grabbed a knife and called the Claiborne Parish Sheriff's Office. Chief Anthony Smith of the Haynesville Police Department responded to her home. After Chief Smith left in search of Defendant, C.C.'s ex-boyfriend came to her house. She stated that they observed Defendant standing in the street in front of her house; and, at 2:22 a.m., she informed Chief Smith by text. She noted that her ex-boyfriend left her house at approximately 5:00 a.m. and then she went to sleep on her couch.

C.C. testified that she was awakened by a man with his hand over her mouth and a knife to her throat. She feared for her life and the lives of her children, who were home and asleep at the time. She stated that the man forced her to perform oral sex on him, that he performed oral sex on her and that he raped her vaginally and anally. The man brandished a knife at her, struck her in the forehead and threatened to kill her and her children. She testified that the man stopped raping her and left her home when one of her children woke up at approximately 7:00 a.m.

C.C. further testified that she went to the hospital and underwent an examination. Morgan Matlock, a forensic nurse examiner and certified sexual assault nurse examiner, testified that she examined C.C. and collected swabs from her body and genitalia. Candace Jones, a forensic DNA analyst with the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory, testified that DNA recovered on swabs from C.C. was consistent with a reference sample from Defendant or a male in his paternal lineage.

Officer Trent Crook of the Haynesville Police Department testified that he obtained a warrant for the arrest of Defendant on June 17, 2014. He stated that at 1:00 a.m. on June 18, 2014, he located Defendant, placed him under arrest, advised him of his rights and secured him in handcuffs. He then transported Defendant to the Haynesville Police Department. As he walked Defendant to another patrol unit to transfer him to the Claiborne Parish Detention Center, Defendant ran away. Officer Crook stated that he chased after Defendant, but was unable to catch him. Law enforcement later located Defendant at his sister's house, and he was taken into custody.

On March 3, 2016, the jury unanimously found Defendant guilty as charged on all three counts. On May 3, 2016, the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence for the conviction of aggravated rape; six years at hard labor for the conviction of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling; and five years at hard labor for the conviction of simple escape. It further ordered that the sentences for aggravated rape and unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling be served concurrently with each other and that the sentence for simple escape be served consecutively.

Defendant appeals.

DISCUSSION

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause made by Defendant, prejudicing his ability to have a fair and impartial trial. He asserts that it erroneously denied his challenges for cause as to potential jurors Patsy Ann Whitlow, Loretta Ford, Brian Edward Bogle and Robert James Heard. He contends that prejudice is presumed in this case because he exercised all 12 peremptory challenges.

The state argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's challenges for cause. It contends that Defendant failed to assert facts to indicate that any of the contested jurors were unable to judge the case impartially based on the evidence adduced at trial.

Louisiana Constitution article I, section 17 (A), guarantees to a defendant the "right to full voir dire examination of prospective jurors and to challenge jurors peremptorily." The number of peremptory challenges granted to a defendant in a trial of an offense punishable by imprisonment at hard labor is fixed by law at 12. La. C. Cr. P. art. 799.

When a defendant uses all 12 of his peremptory challenges, an erroneous ruling of a trial court on a challenge for cause that results in depriving him of one of his peremptory challenges constitutes a substantial violation of his constitutional and statutory rights, requiring reversal of the conviction and sentence. State v. Juniors , 03-2425 (La. 6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291. Prejudice is presumed when a challenge for cause is erroneously denied by a trial court and a defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges. Id. Therefore, where all peremptory challenges have been used, a defendant need only demonstrate the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause to establish reversible error warranting reversal of a conviction and sentence. State v. Dotson , 16-0473 (La. 10/18/17), 234 So.3d 34, 2017 WL 4681942 ; State v. Juniors , supra .

Challenges for cause are governed by La. C. Cr. P. art. 797, which states:

The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that:

(1) The juror lacks a qualification required by law;

(2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence;

(3) The relationship, whether by blood, marriage, employment, friendship, or enmity between the juror and the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel, is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict;

(4) The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court; or

(5) The juror served on the grand jury that found the indictment, or on a petit jury that once tried the defendant for the same or any other offense.

Voir dire examination of prospective jurors is designed to discover bases for challenges for cause and to secure information for an intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. State v. Drew , 360 So.2d 500 (La. 1978). The questions propounded are designed to determine any potential adverse influence on a juror's ability to render an impartial verdict. Id. A prospective juror's responses during voir dire cannot be considered in isolation. State v. Dotson , supra , citing State v. Frost , 97-1771 (La. 12/1/98), 727 So.2d 417. A challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror's responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably inferred. State v. Clark , 12-0508 (La. 12/19/16), 220 So.3d 583 ; State v. Jones , 474 So.2d 919 (La. 1985). A challenge for cause is not warranted when a prospective juror volunteers an opinion seemingly prejudicial to the defense, but subsequently, after further inquiry or instruction (frequently called "rehabilitation"), has demonstrated an ability and willingness to decide the case impartially according to the law and evidence. State v. Robertson , 630 So.2d 1278 (La. 1994) ; State v. Brown , 46,669 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/29/12), 86 So.3d 726, writ denied , 12-0724 (La. 9/14/12), 97 So.3d 1016.

A trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and its rulings will be reversed only when a review of the voir dire record as a whole reveals an abuse of discretion. State v. Tucker , 13-1631 (La. 9/1/15), 181 So.3d 590. A court's evaluation of the attributes required to qualify a prospective juror is entitled to great weight.

State v. Hampton , 50,561 (La. App. 2 Cir. ...