State v. Serigne

1

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. WILLIAM SERIGNE, SR. AND LIONEL SERIGNE, JR.

No. 2022-KA-0669

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit

August 29, 2023

APPEAL FROM ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 381-470 DIVISION “D” Honorable Kirk A. Vaughn, Judge.

Jeff Landry, J. Taylor Gray, Joseph LeBeau LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CRIMINAL DIVISION P.O., COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

Edward Joseph Castaing, Jr. CRULL CASTAING & LILLY, Michael C Ginart, Jr. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. GINART, JR. &amp ASSOCIATES, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.

Court composed of Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Paula A Brown, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott.

PAULA A. BROWN, JUDGE.

In this criminal appeal, Appellant, the State of Louisiana (the "State"), seeks review of the district court's October 23, 2020 judgment, which granted Appellee/Defendant's, William Serigne, Sr. ("William"), motion to reconsider motion to dismiss two of three indictments and quashed two of the indictments. After review, we vacate the district court's judgment reinstate Counts 2 and 3 of the indictments, and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case has a long and storied history. In order to contextualize the matter now before this Court, we find it necessary to provide an overview of the prosecutorial history of William. For the sake of brevity, we will limit any discussion of the other defendant in these proceedings William's brother, Lionel Serigne ("Lionel"), to only what is pertinent to the issues now on appeal.

In an earlier appeal, this Court provided a cogent account of the underlying facts in this case:

In 2009, D.A., then age thirty-nine, came forward to authorities to report sex crimes committed by her first cousins, brothers Lionel and William []. She reported that the crimes had taken place commencing over thirty years prior when she was six years old and continuing through and until she was about twelve years old. She reported that a number of sexual acts were committed against her beginning with Lionel, who is eleven years older, and then followed by William, who is four years older. D.A. subsequently had conversations with her cousins B.M. and M.S., who thereafter reported that sex crimes were committed against them by William [], the uncle of B.M., and the father of M.S.

State v. Serigne, 14-0379, pp. 1-2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/2/16), 193 So.3d 297, 302 303. "[I]n 2010, William [] was indicted on three charges, aggravated rape during the year 1981 (D.A.), sexual battery on or about October 31, 2004 (B.M.), and, aggravated incest during the year 1998 (M.S.)." Id. at p. 2, 193 So.3d at 303. Lionel was indicted on a single charge, aggravated rape of a juvenile, namely D.A. Id. On September 28, 2011, the State filed a motion to amend William's indictment for aggravated rape as well as Lionel's single indictment to substitute the year of the alleged rape in each. Id. at pp. 2-3, 193 So.3d at 303. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to consolidate William's and Lionel's trials, which the district court denied. Id. at p. 3, 193 So.3d at 303.

"After the [district] court denied the [S]tate's motion to try the defendants together, the [S]tate convened a second grand jury and obtained a new indictment." State v. Serigne, 16-1034, p. 1 (La. 12/6/17), 232 So.3d 1227. "This second indictment, which jointly indicted the defendants, added a new element of the charge of aggravated rape as to each defendant, and reflected different dates for the charged offenses." Serigne, 14-0379, p. 3, 193 So.3d at 303. At this juncture, the indictments for both William and Lionel were as follows:

Count 1 That WILLIAM R. SERIGNE, SR., ... on or after March 28, 1981 until and throughout the year 1983, ... did commit aggravated rape upon D.A., date of birth December 27, 1970, by having sexual intercourse with D.A.; by having sexual intercourse with D.A. when two offenders participated in the act, the second offender being LIONEL R. SERIGNE, JR.; when the victim was prevented from resisting the act from threats of great and immediate harm, in violation of LA R.S. 14:42, to-wit: AGGRAVATED RAPE.

Count 2 ... LIONEL R. SERIGNE, JR., ... between and including the years 1976 and 1983, did commit aggravated rape upon D.A., date of birth December 27, 1970, ... by having sexual intercourse with D.A.; by having sexual intercourse with D.A. when two offenders participated in the act, the second offender being WILLIAM R. SERIGNE, JR. [sic]; when the victim was prevented from resisting the act from threats of great and immediate harm, in violation of LA R.S. 14:42, to-wit: AGGRAVATED RAPE.

Count 3 ... WILLIAM R. SERIGNE, SR., on or after March 28, 1981 until and throughout the year 1983, did commit aggravated rape upon D.A., date of birth December 27, 1970, by having sexual intercourse with D.A.; when the victim was prevented from resisting the act from threats of great and immediate harm, in violation of LA R.S. 14:42, to-wit: AGGRAVATED RAPE.

Count 4 ... between October 22, 2004 and November 1, 2004, WILLIAM R. SERIGNE, SR., did commit a sexual battery of B.M., date of birth July 25, 1996, in violation of LA. R.S. 14:43.1, to wit: SEXUAL BATTERY, by fondling the genitals of the minor victim, B.M.

Count 5 ... during the years 1983[sic], 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, WILLIAM R. SERIGNE, SR., did commit aggravated incest upon his biological daughter, M.S., date of birth October 19, 1987, by lewd fondling or touching, and engaging in sexual acts with M.S., including in the alternative, sexual battery, molestation of a juvenile and other prohibited sexual activity considered a crime under the laws of the State of Louisiana, all in violation of LA. R.S. 14:78.1, to-wit: AGGRAVATED INCEST.

On November 8, 2013, the district court found William guilty on Counts 1, 4 and 5 and not guilty on Count 3, while Lionel was found guilty on Count 2 of the indictment.^[1] On May 2, 2016, this Court reversed the convictions of both defendants on appeal. This Court found the evidence was sufficient to support William's convictions; however, the Court found the defendants should not have been tried jointly because Lionel was charged with a capital offense, which could only be tried before a jury, and William was charged with non-capital offenses, which could be tried by a judge or jury. In addition, this Court ordered and reviewed the grand jury testimony and found there was a Brady^[2] violation since the transcript contained no evidence that would support the State's allegation of joint participation in the rape of D.A. State v. Serigne, 14-0379, p. 32 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/2/16), 193 So.3d 297, 319.

The State sought a writ in the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking reversal of this Court's ruling. The State asserted that the issue was whether the Fourth Circuit erred in reversing William's convictions and sentences, and it requested that the Supreme Court reinstate the convictions imposed by the district court. In response, William filed an opposition, in which he asserted that the State failed to properly raise errors regarding all convictions; as such, the State abandoned the arguments as to Counts 2 and 3. The State filed a supplemental writ application, noting that it had properly sought to have the Supreme Court reverse this Court's decision and reinstate all convictions and sentences. William then moved to strike or oppose the State's supplemental writ application. The State filed an opposition to William's motion to strike.

Following briefing by the parties, the Supreme Court granted writs. State v. Serigne, 16-1034 (La. 5/26/17), 221 So.3d 78. The Supreme Court issued a per curiam on December 6, 2017, reversing this Court's decision and reinstating the convictions and sentences of both defendants. State v. Serigne, 16-1034, pp. 8-9, 232 So.3d at 1232. Specifically, that Court set forth:

[W]e reverse the court of appeal's determination in errors patent review that Lionel['s] conviction and sentence must be set aside because he was unable to validly waive a jury trial. We reinstate Lionel's conviction and sentence. In addition, we reverse the court of appeal's determination that William [] is entitled to a new trial based on a Brady violation, which issue was never passed on by the trial court, and we reinstate his convictions and sentences. However, we also remand to the district court for further proceedings to determine if Lionel and William are entitled to new trials based on undisclosed Brady material in the grand jury testimony.

Id. at p. 9, 232 So.3d at 1232.

Defendants filed a motion for clarification or rehearing the following day; the motion sought clarification of the Supreme Court's ruling and remand on the Brady issue; however, it did not seek clarification or reconsideration of the Supreme Court's reinstatement of William's convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court denied rehearing on January 30, 2018.

The matter was remanded to the district court, which subsequently held the required Brady hearing. William and Lionel filed a joint brief to support their request for new trials however, the request made no mention of any continued belief that the State had failed to seek review in the Supreme Court writ application of this Court's reversal of all of his convictions. On September 18, 2018, the district court conducted a hearing, in which it overturned the convictions of both defendants based on the Brady issue, and granted new trials. The district court did not limit its ruling to those convictions of William related to victim D.A.; rather, it issued a blanket order granting a new trial. The State noticed its intent to file a supervisory writ application and requested a stay,...