State of Louisiana v. Jacob A. Walker

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2024-KA-0645

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
JACOB A. WALKER *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 559-771, SECTION “D”
Judge Kimya M. Holmes
******
Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott
******
(Court composed of Judge Rachael D. Johnson, Judge Karen K. Herman, Judge
Nakisha Ervin-Knott)

Jason R. Williams
District Attorney
Brad Scott
Chief of Appeals
Thomas Frederick
Assistant District Attorney
ORLEANS PARISH
619 South White Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70119

COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA

Holli Herrle-Castillo
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT
P. O. Box 2333
Marrero, Louisiana 70073-2333

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED
MAY 15, 2025

NEK The defendant, Jacob Walker (“Defendant”), seeks review of his conviction
RDJ
for sexual battery. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction.
KKH
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On September 29, 2022, D.G.1, a student at Tulane University (“Tulane”) in

New Orleans, Louisiana, had a scheduled massage therapy session with Defendant

at his business, Crescent Kinetic Massage Therapy (“Crescent Kinetic”). During the

massage session, Defendant allegedly touched D.G.’s vagina and breasts without her

consent.

After the session, on the same day, D.G. disclosed this incident to two friends.

Two days later, D.G. notified Tulane’s Dean of Students of the incident, who then

notified Tulane University Police Department (“TUPD”) of the incident. TUPD

contacted the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”). D.G. was interviewed by

NOPD Detective Miosha Walker (“Detective Walker”). As a part of the

1 Due to the nature of the crime discussed herein, we will refer to the victim by her initials to

protect her identity. See La. R.S. 46:1844(W)(1)(a) (providing, in pertinent part, that “[i]n order
to protect the identity and provide for the safety and welfare of … victims of sex offenses … all
public officials and officers and public agencies, including but not limited to … judicial officers,
… shall not publicly disclose the name, address, contact information, or identity of … victims of
sex offenses….”).

1

investigation, Detective Walker showed her a photo lineup, and D.G. identified

Defendant as the individual who performed the massage and touched her

inappropriately. Based on D.G.’s identification, Defendant was arrested.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 24, 2023, the State filed a bill of information charging Defendant

with sexual battery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:43.1. On November 14, 2023,

Defendant pled not guilty to the charge.

A one-day jury trial proceeded on June 18, 2024, with the jury finding

Defendant guilty of sexual battery. Prior to sentencing, on August 15, 2024,

Defendant filed a motion for new trial and motion for post-verdict judgment of

acquittal, which were both denied. On the same day, the trial court sentenced

Defendant to five years imprisonment at the Department of Corrections without the

benefits of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. This appeal timely followed.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2), all appeals are reviewed for errors

patent on the face of the record. A review of the record reveals one error patent.

The record evidences that the trial court sentenced Defendant less than

twenty-four hours after denying his motions for new trial and post-verdict judgment

of acquittal. Thus, the trial court erred in failing to observe the twenty-four hour

sentencing delay required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 873. Louisiana Code of Criminal

Procedure Article 873 states that if “a motion for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment,

is filed, sentence shall not be imposed until at least twenty-four hours after the

motion is overruled,” unless the defendant “expressly waives” the delay or pleads

guilty. Nevertheless, if a defendant waives the twenty-four hour sentencing delay,

then the trial court’s failure to wait at least twenty-four hours after a motion for new

2

trial constitutes harmless error. State v. Robinson, 2021-0254, p. 21 (La. App. 4 Cir.

2/18/22), 336 So.3d 567, 580.

Defendant was convicted by jury on July 18, 2024. On August 15, 2024,

Defendant filed motions for new trial and post-verdict judgment of acquittal, which

were denied on the same day. Following the denial of these two motions, the trial

court proceeded to sentence Defendant. There is no indication in the record that

Defendant waived the twenty-four hour sentencing delay. When the trial court

sentenced Defendant on the same day as the denial of the motions for new trial and

post-verdict judgment of acquittal, the trial court failed to comply with the twenty-

four hour sentencing delay found in La. C.Cr.P. art. 873. However, when a defendant

does not challenge his sentence on appeal and does not raise as an error the failure

of the trial court to observe the twenty-four hour sentencing delay, the error is

considered harmless. State v. Jenkins, 2019-1024, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/30/20), 365

So.3d 55, 62. In this matter, Defendant did not challenge his sentence on appeal, and

he failed to raise as an error the issue of the twenty-four hour sentencing delay.

Accordingly, although the trial court erred in failing to observe the twenty-four hour

delay required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 873, we conclude the error was harmless.

DISCUSSION

As his sole assignment of error, Defendant contends there is insufficient

evidence to support his sexual battery conviction. Recently, in another sexual battery

case, this Court stated:

“The standard for determining an insufficiency of evidence claim is
well settled.” State v. Campbell, 2015-0017, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir.
6/24/15), 171 So. 3d 1176, 1182. Claims for insufficiency of evidence
must be viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560
(1979); State v. Wilson, 2022-0346, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/9/22), 353
So.3d 389, 393. An appellate court is tasked with determining if the

3

evidence is sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all elements
of a crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

“This Court must review ‘the record as a whole since that is what a
rational trier of fact would do.’” Wilson, 2022-0346, p. 4, 353 So.3d at
393 (citation omitted). This Court is not tasked with assessing the
credibility of witnesses or reweighing evidence. Campbell, 2015-0017,
p. 8, 171 So.3d at 1182 (citations omitted). The credibility
determination of the trier of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly
contrary to the evidence. Id. The testimony of a single witness, if
believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a factual
conclusion. Id.

State v. Magee, 2022-0635, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/20/23), 382 So.3d 155, 162,

writ denied, 2023-01583 (La. 5/29/24), 385 So.3d 701.

The State charged Defendant with the sexual battery of D.G., a violation of

La. R.S. 14:43.1, and the jury found him guilty as charged. Louisiana Revised

Statute 14:43.1(A) defines sexual battery, in pertinent part, as:

[T]he intentional touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the
offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the
offender, directly or through clothing, or the touching of the anus or
genitals of the offender by the victim using any instrumentality or any
part of the body of the victim, directly or through clothing, when any
of the following occur:

(1) The offender acts without the consent of the victim.

According to La. R.S. 14:43.1(A)(1), in order to uphold a conviction for

sexual battery, the State was required to present sufficient evidence that the

Defendant touched D.G.’s genitals without her consent. Defendant argues that there

is insufficient evidence for his conviction of sexual battery because the State failed

to present any physical or other evidence to corroborate D.G.’s testimony. At trial,

the State presented no physical, medical, DNA, eyewitness, or other corroborating

evidence of a sexual battery. The State’s sole evidence presented to substantiate the

sexual battery conviction was D.G.’s testimony.

4

Notably, our Court has recognized that “[i]n cases involving sexual offenses,

the testimony of the victim alone may be sufficient to establish the elements of the

offense, even where the State does not introduce medical, scientific, or physical

evidence to prove the commission of the offense.” Magee, 2022-0635, p. 9, 382

So.3d at 163 (citing State v. Barbain, 2015-0404, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/4/15),

179 So.3d 770, 778). At trial, D.G. testified concerning the events that preceded the

incident, the incident itself, and her actions after the incident. During her testimony,

D.G. explained that several years before the subject incident, she was involved in a

motor vehicle accident, which resulted in her suffering with chronic neck and back

pain. When she experienced “flare-ups” of these injuries, D.G. would receive

massage therapy. D.G. testified that in May 2022, she was experiencing neck and

back pain and searched for a massage therapist located near Tulane’s campus. She

found Crescent Kinetic – Defendant’s business – and further research revealed

Defendant had experience working with chronic pain. D.G. scheduled her first

session with Crescent Kinetic, however, it was with another massage therapist

because Defendant was unavailable. D.G. did not allege any sexual battery occurred

during this first session.

D.G. testified that in September 2022, she experienced another flare-up of

neck and back pain and scheduled another session at Crescent Kinetic, although this

time, she was able to schedule Defendant as her massage therapist. Again, D.G. did

not allege any sexual battery occurred during this session with Defendant. After this

initial session with Defendant, D.G. testified that she scheduled a subsequent

massage session with Defendant for September 29, 2022.

Regarding the September 29, 2022 incident, D.G. testified that the session

initially started out as a typical massage. However, towards the end of the massage,

5

as she was lying on her back, she felt Defendant moving closer to her vagina. Then,

she noticed that Defendant’s hands were on top of her vagina, and thereafter, he

began touching the inside of her vagina. D.G. further testified that while the

Defendant was touching the inside of her vagina, he asked, “Are you okay with

penetration?” D.G. responded in the affirmative, “Uh-huh.” D.G. expounded:

So throughout the massage, because this is painful process even though
it helps the soft tissue, or it helped with my chronic pain, in order for it
to help it has to be kind of uncomfortable for me. The way in which I
responded when I’ve gotten massages or soft tissue work done in the
past, I say, you know, they ask, you know, “Is this too much pressure?”
All of that stuff, so. My response to that is, like, “uh-huh (Affirmative
response).”

So prior to all this happening, when he was asking questions, like, “is
this okay?” About just the amount of pressure; “is this pressure okay?”
I would say, “uh-huh (Affirmative response).” That’s what came out of
my mouth when he asked [“Are you okay with penetration?”], I just
said, “Uh-huh (Affirmative response).”

Defendant also asked, “Is this too many fingers?” Again, D.G. responded in the

affirmative, “Uh-huh.” D.G. explained that while she was still covered by a sheet

when Defendant began touching her vagina, he later removed the sheet so that her

body was completely exposed. D.G. further testified that in addition to touching her

vagina, Defendant also fondled her breasts. When the Defendant completed the

massage, D.G. stated that he asked, “Did you come?” and placed the sheet back over

her body. D.G. hurriedly put on her clothes, and as she was paying for the session,

Defendant asked, “Are you okay with everything that just happened?” D.G. testified

that she responded, “Thank you, thank you” and quickly left the premises. On cross-

examination, D.G. acknowledged that she left a tip for the Defendant.

After the incident, D.G. Facetimed with her parents. D.G. explained that her

phone was not working, so after her massage, she used her laptop to Facetime with

her parents. During their conversation, her parents asked, “How was the massage?”

6

D.G. responded, “Oh, it was good.” D.G. spent the remainder of the day with one of

her friends – driving around to AT&T and Apple stores trying to get her phone fixed.

D.G. testified that she first disclosed the incident to her roommate – and

subsequently to another friend – later on that same day. Two days later, she informed

Tulane’s Dean of Students, who notified TUPD, and TUPD contacted the NOPD.

To controvert D.G.’s testimony, Defendant testified that he did not touch

D.G.’s vagina and gave a demonstration of how he performs massages. Defendant

also testified that on the day of the incident, he did not deviate from his normal

massage process. In addition to his testimony, Defendant called two other people

testify in his defense: Amber Jordan (“Ms. Jordan”) and Tia Alexander Walker

(“Mrs. Walker”). Ms. Jordan – whose office is located next to Defendant’s office –

testified that the walls between the two offices are very thin, and on the day of the

incident, she did not hear any signs of a sexual battery taking place in Defendant’s

office. Mrs. Walker – Defendant’s wife – testified that she is Defendant’s business

partner and does the laundry for the business “every single day.” On the day of the

incident, she did not notice any fluids or anything out of the ordinary in washing the

sheets after D.G.’s massage.

Defendant adopts a two-part challenge to his sexual battery conviction: (1) He

did not touch D.G.’s vagina; and (2) even if one believes that this touching occurred,

D.G. consented to the vaginal touching as part of her massage. Regarding the first

part of his challenge, Defendant asserts that if D.G. had been the victim of a sexual

battery, she would have reported the incident to her parents during their Facetime

conversation immediately after the massage and would not have told them that her

massage was good. Additionally, Defendant maintains that if D.G. had been the

7

victim of a sexual battery, she would not have said, “Thank you, thank you” at the

conclusion of the massage nor would she have left a tip for the Defendant.

The fact that D.G. did not immediately notify her parents of the incident does

not challenge the credibility of her testimony, especially considering the fact that she

told her two friends what occurred the same day of the incident. Also, D.G. reported

the incident to the Dean of Students two days after the incident. Moreover, D.G.

testified that she was trying to leave Defendant’s premises “as soon as [she] could,”

which a rational juror could have determined accounted for her response of “Thank

you, thank you” and leaving a tip.

As to the second part of his challenge, Defendant contends that D.G.

expressed consent to the vaginal touching when she responded “Uh-huh” to his

request to penetration. Yet, D.G. testified that her response of “Uh-huh” was a

routine response she gave throughout the massage to other questions, and that in the

moment, she froze. Additionally, as noted in D.G.’s testimony, Defendant had

already placed his fingers inside of her vagina before asking if she consented to

penetration, and there was no testimony provided that established D.G.’s prior

consent to the touching of her vagina.

After a review of the evidence before this Court, we find that the jury made

reasonable credibility determinations in favor of the State. In this case, the necessary

elements of sexual battery were established through D.G.’s testimony as she testified

that Defendant placed his hands on top of and fingers inside of her vagina without

her consent. The record reveals sufficient evidence to conclude that any rational trier

of fact could have found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the

elements of sexual battery. Accordingly, we conclude that this assignment of error,

regarding the sexual battery conviction, is without merit.

8

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for sexual

battery.

AFFIRMED

9