State Of Louisiana v. Charles Michael Folse, II

e: 2* dt

ORR

2 t ! #

AFROM THE APPEAL TWENTY- SECOND JUD* DISTRICT COURT,§DIVISIONE 2: AND FOR THE PARISH e2 2? ? « © f»< T A: STATE O, LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 3182- F- 2019

f 2 yw: 2 ;. 1- » 2. 2. - \$ »\ Gwendolyn K. Brown Attorneys for D ,,,- 4

Louisiana f k- Project Charles 2 ,- a J. II Baton Rouge, .,\?.°+

1,larren L. Montgomery t20» f:< 6 *,- -District Attorney zz o . 0. Matthew Caplan Covington, Louisiana RiaggUM

row with three counts of aggravated/ first degree rape of a victim under the age of thirteEl years ( counts one, three, and five), violations of L. R. S. 14: 42( A)( 4); five counts of molestation of a juvenile under the age of thirteen years when the incidents of

11111 Il 1 1 Milli!

am= m4manins

lrl lill i 1 i r p,ii,! • !'ii iI M.

nss= IUEE i MM= 1 1 1111T 11112111131211! 11 li!;; llii!; 1111111 i l i i ll ll l I M2EMl= MMMzzMGMM

I Regarding counts one, three, and five, the Louisiana Legislature renamed the offense of aggravated rape to "first degree rape" without any material alteration of the substance of the crime. See La. R. S. 14: 42( E); 2015 La. Acts Nos. 184, § 1& 256, § 1. As the offenses herein occurred both before and after the amendment, we shall reference those offenses as aggravated/ first degree rape.

2 As to count ten, we note the minutes incorrectly state the charge to which the defendant pled not guilty and with which he was convicted. However, the transcript reflects the correct charge. When there is a discrepancy between the minutes and the transcript, the transcript prevails. State v. Lynch, 441 So. 2d 732, 734 ( La. 1983). This issue will be discussed below in the patent error section.

K

a period of more than one year), to forty years imprisonment without benefit of parol(I 3 probation, or suspension of sentence, with each sentence to be served consecutively.

defendant's convictions. We affirm the sentences on counts one, two, three, four, and five. We affirm the sentence on count ten and remand with instructions for correction of minutes. We amend the sentences on counts six, seven, eight, and nine, and affirm as

i 111111 IllilillIll f r, RMEMMMMM

by the defendant since she was seven years old. M. F., S. I., and L. W. ( M. I. and

1liffiRliffillifflil! 1 1!

I

Following the girls' interviews at the Children' s Advocacy Center ( CAC}, officers learned sex toys were used on the children. While executing a search warrant at tj defendant's residence, officers confiscated several items matching the girls' descriptions.

¹¹

ili il l l l l l : l il il !! il ilI 111 1111` 1111111; il il il: Il mmlnwfrer;:I

I I N111 ! III lI i.

ultimately charged with the instant offenses.

I & U LUS U 9 JIM K!R11 - 10 1 6', 1

11 11 1111 overruled his objections during the States closing argument, which he contencE

I Although the minutes indicate the sentences on counts six, seven, eight, and nine were imposed at hard labor, the sentencing transcript reveals the trial court did not order, as statutorily required, those sentences to be served at hard labor. When there is a discrepancy between the minutes and the transcript, the transcript prevails. Lynch, 441 So. 2d at 734. This issue will be discussed below in the patent error section.

4 Because these charges involve sex offenses, we reference the victims and their immediate family members by their initials. See La. R. S. 46: 1844( W)

improperly vouched for the victims' credibility. In his second assignment of error, he contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion for mistrial after the State improperly referenced the defendant"s failure to testify in its closing argument.

III Ili i KIM] IiIIIIIII p I 11 1 1 I 1= 4 I I I iI I

MM IIIIII I IIIII 1 1111

377 ( 2007). The trial judge has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing

IM M

argument unless thoroughly convinced the remarks influenced the jury and contributed

I ' IIIIIIIIIIIII I 1Z I I E11111111 i Ii , Ii I 11111111111222MI Wof MIIM'

During its closing remarks, the State discussed the evidence presented at trial; namely, the victims' testimony and CAC interviews. The State recounted a statement in

both M. F.' s and M. J.' s interviews, in which they each stated the defendant told them they Pllliii liiliil;% I gilp

following comments:

Are they to be believed? Are they credible? Are they consistent? [ M. F.], M. 3.], [ 3. 3.], [ S. 3.], [ L. W.], y'all are believed.

times it was their duty to assess the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court overruled

M specified that closing statements are argument by counsel, not evidence. The court

It is reversible error for the State to express its belief in the guilt of the accused,

i 01R I M I TO I! I FIVE 2= appear in the record. State v. Sayles, 395 So. 2d 695, 697 ( La. 1981); State v.

i I 1- 4 1' Iiii

I, i, I, M MORM

U11

l I llp g ill 111 TEAROOM ill 1 illI . I I I 0 0 Opole 0

prejudice or otherwise improper. See Deckellman, 2011 WL 4436529 at * 10.

irl; 1 11 Mil 11 11 1111 1 IFUNIM-1

1i I 1112" n 1 111 i xiirlllviii I pro amm6w.

without merit.

I I I Jill 7" d, I failure to testify within the hearing of the jury, during trial or in argument. Where the reference is indirect, the reviewing court must inquire into the remark's intended effect

A

Herein, defense counsel' s closing argument focused on the inconsistencies in the I III 1 • 111 MMIlli Iiiii Ili INS! MORRIS li III j I:' Jil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i Jill OFTiiiiiIlI! lIllIilliI 1 !• IIII A

11111111

Defense counsel] is right. The expert can't tell you where that DNA is coming from. How it got on [ the objects]. They can tell you who it belongs to. They can' t tell you how it got on

Who told you where that DNA came from? [ M. F.] She took the stand. Who told, who took this stand? Who sal; She was in those [ CAC] videos. in the chair, looked you dead in the eye, and said that DNA came from any other place, under any other circumstance, other than the defendant taking those [ objects] and sticking them in his . . . daughter's vagina and anus? Nobody. There's nothing to refute what [ M. F.] told you.

MMM RMEMM too

EMREMM I 1! I I! I i I I I I I I I i ! Jil I iI I I JIM! i I i J I I! J! I lFillig 1111

WIMS F,IPOTITMM,11MM.

In Johnson, three State witnesses testified the defendant confessed to them. Id. on the sex toys. M. F. testified at trial and in her CAC statement that she and the

111 11111111 ; Ili I I 1 11111 11 111 Hill I

this defense.

lillpill IF ill Ill Jill IIIIII IIIIIII Ill• 22• MZMM I l I I l ill! l IT illilillu• i E•• MMMEMM

RMMM M GMENCEMBRE

State' s reference to the unrebutted nature of their case does not mean inquiring into the 11111111101111 licilillilli

re" oeMMi. Ili Jill!

I I I I 111 ill m3EIMIMME = wwwMa= sex toys, the defendant is the only person who could have taken the stand ariM 111011111F

IJ! IIIIIIIIJIIJJIIIj

III1• IJJIIIIIIIIIlI

lllolii;•

defendant's biological paternal lineage was present, and the defendant could not I excluded from that group. However, she could not affirmatively include or exclude the

ill M lilllll lillill1 11 ig

MMCMEM

Jill

5 While both L.W. and M. F. testified they were abused together while in the same room, neither of them testified such incidents included the use of sex toys.

l I 1 Ill

Ill 1I 111111glilill;

MEMM= IZMMM

oill lill i 11111111 MyRIMEM Millf i I il R1 111 ll1Z=-; 1zM= I, BUT

gl 1 1 1s i ii w ..........M .......... ... ....... ........

Although Article 770 is couched in mandatory terms, it is a rule for trial

111! 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1; 1 1 1 1 11111il

1 lj; I I Jill 1 11O lllg lliiipq llllq

MITRE! 1

ill I 1 1 1 111mill ' 1 1 111 a a

in this trial was surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 1111 0 00

yip Ill pl 133.

Herein, we find the trial court's error in denying the motion for mistrial was

I I IlIql1lip

were made), the State discussed the DNA evidence and noted it had not seen arM I

MEBOM 1 1111111111111111, 1111 UPON 1 111111111 pi Jill 4111111

I ril 4.

I Ell Ill ; III WIN031f= ITMORMITM, i I 1 1 11111311 Jill il 1111 1! I Ill Il I Ill 111 1 1 111, 111 IF 1 1 Il I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA

defendant' s guilt at trial. Considering the victims' testimony and CAC interviews, which detailed the chronic sexual abuse the victims endured, we conclude the jury's verdicts

inR1707 Off, 17-M

1; amgalu-After a careful review of the record, we have found three patent errors. was subject to imprisonment at hard labor only. 5ge La. R. S. 14: 42( D)( 1) ari 14: 43. 1( 0)( 2). Thus, the sentences imposed on these counts are illegally lenient. An

I' l ISM R I ICII MI 11 1111 1

1174. Accordingly, we correct the sentences on counts six, seven, eight, and nine by sentencing minutes reflect this incorrect offense. However, the sentencing transcript reflects the correct offense of molestation of a juvenile when the incidents of molestation

liillllq 111111 I 111, 1111i ; 1111111l ; Illl! ! Ill HE=

6 We note the minute entry detailing the jury's verdicts lists the correct offense. W11

minute entry and the transcript, the transcript prevails, Lynch, 441 So. 2d at 734.

instruct the trial court to amend the minute entries to accurately reflect the defendant's 11 ; 111 IIIIIIII; Ijjjj I A

Finally, after the trial court imposed the sentences herein, it failed to advise the

li ill"I PIN

I TRI! 1! 11

and is not grounds to reverse the sentence or remand for resentencing. Further, thM I 111 1111111111 ; I 11111 I I II1p; I 1 I A RIPIR R. I!

MMMM

M-1EMM ME III I lI I I I III I H I I I I I 1 11 111 1 1 111 1 1 1 111, 1111111! 1-

ii ; 11011 i: liiiiiiiiiiiiillliillltllll gIii Iqjil ' 111 flPPIIIIIIIIIIIII

111 II III; IIIIII 10! vI II: 11 gj1 111111; 111111' 1 1• q l i I IRri i

i; III; IR1 R' 11 nl nin•

with instructions to amend the minute entries. We amend the sentences on counts six,

ALI

Footnotes

[11] Jill ROM - 1 I 11% I i 1 1 1 IT PRIME i 3`1 iiiii I' llill lipillillillill 0 IIIIIIIII' lill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i iiiii Ill i1iiiiiiiiiiii Ill 3M= have rebutted the State' s evidence, a reference to the testimony as uncontroverted focuses the jury's attention on the defendant' s failure to testify and mandates a mistrial. imp M MM= 11 1 Eillifflifflifflifil" iiij! i WHO Rll 41111011 I USE =- constituted an indirect reference to the defendant's failure to testify at trial. See State lit' lliF On" La. 1992). Therein, the victim testified the defendants raped her with their penises; 11111111111111111 1 111i1 - l " 1111111111111FFZ Ill Ill 11 P44 1 1 11111i ;! 11 11iljl I I' 111, 111 PliIIIIIIiilln• Ii ': 1 111111111 ilijjl1 1 1 iill! 1" lil were an indirect reference to the defendant's failure to testify. See State v. Larnark, La ark, the victim testified she was raped by the defendant, and they were the only I I or: K I 1 1 Ii 1 i MOWS 4= 1 glqilili! 1111101111 1 11 1 l 111 111111 ITRI 1 IIIIN il I I II ly 111111 are similar to those at issue in Johnson, Moser, and Lamark. In the instant case, the 1I I Iiiiiiiii1illilli PRIEM! 1