State of Louisiana v. Doyle Shannon

Judgment rendered July 17, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,697-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

DOYLE SHANNON Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Fourth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2021-CR-1740

Honorable Scott Leehy, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Douglas Lee Harville

DOYLE SHANNON Pro Se

ROBERT S. TEW Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

KALEE MORGAN MOORE
HOLLY A. CHAMBERS-JONES
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before ROBINSON, HUNTER, and ELLENDER, JJ.

ELLENDER, J.

Doyle Shannon was convicted by jury of first degree rape and second

degree kidnapping, receiving a mandatory life sentence for rape and 40 years

for kidnapping. He appeals his convictions only, arguing the trial court

erred by sustaining multiple objections made during his cross-examination

of the victim. For the reasons expressed, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 8, 2021, BS1 was discharged from a rehabilitation center and

stayed overnight at the Studio 6 motel on Martin Luther King Drive in

Monroe. The next morning, after checking out and waiting most of the day

for her sister to come pick her up, she realized her phone needed to be

charged so she walked to the nearby Super 8 motel and asked the clerk to

borrow a charger. Shannon, who was in the lobby and overheard this

conversation, offered BS the use of his own charger, but only if she came to

his room. While she was charging her phone, Shannon’s behavior changed

drastically, so BS tried to get out of his room and began walking toward the

door. Shannon physically restrained BS from leaving declaring she was not

going anywhere, despite her attempts to resist. Shannon made BS drink

something that immediately caused her to feel intoxicated, pointed a gun at

her, and demanded she strip naked. Shannon proceeded to rape BS multiple

times over the course of the night and into the next morning.

When Shannon left the room to get breakfast, BS fled and called her

relatives, who contacted the police. Upon arrival, officers located BS in the

1
BS is referred to by her initials since she was the victim of a sex crime. La. R.S.
46:1844(W).

parking lot and she informed them she had been raped repeatedly and held

against her will by a male armed with a handgun. Later, when Shannon

returned to the scene, BS identified him as her assailant and he was arrested.

Shannon was charged by bill of indictment with first degree rape,

second degree kidnapping, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and

false imprisonment. He was tried in February 2023, but, prior to jury

selection, the state dismissed the possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon and false imprisonment charges. Shannon was found guilty as charged

on both remaining counts, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without

benefits for first degree rape, and 40 years without benefits for second

degree kidnapping. The sentences were imposed concurrently.

DISCUSSION

At trial, the state sought to admit a videoed statement of BS taken

shortly after she had been raped. Prior to its admission, the state confirmed

BS had undergone a SANE evaluation before giving the statement. The

state first played a brief portion of the video before questioning BS, who

confirmed it was her and that she had given the statement shortly after being

raped. The video, which contained BS’s account of what happened, was

then admitted without objection and played in its entirety for the jury. At the

conclusion of the video, the state further questioned BS before she was

tendered. BS was cross-examined by defense counsel on issues related to

her testimony and about the recorded statement. Numerous objections were

lodged by the state during the cross-examination, with the trial court

sustaining some and overruling others.

In his sole assignment of error, Shannon urges the court erred in

sustaining repeated hearsay objections raised by the state. He contends that
2

this effectively prevented him from unfettered cross-examination relative to

her videoed statement and precluded the jury from having a full

understanding of the case. Even though no objection was made to the

admissibility of the videoed statement, Shannon asserts it should not have

been admitted because the statement was not made under oath and was not

subject to sufficient cross-examination. He concludes that the court’s

rulings prevented him from having a fair trial.

At the outset, we address the admissibility of BS’s videoed statement.

As the statement was consistent with her testimony and was one of initial

complaint of sexually assaultive behavior, it was not hearsay. La. C.E. art.

801(D)(1)(d). It was, therefore, admissible. State v. Hilliard, 52,652 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278 So. 3d 1065, writ denied, 19-01701 (La. 7/24/20),

299 So. 3d 68. To the extent that Shannon is now arguing BS’s statement

should not have been admitted, the argument lacks merit.

Moreover, a party must make a timely objection to evidence that a

party considers to be inadmissible and must state the specific ground for the

objection. La. C.E. art. 103(A)(1); La. C. Cr. P. art. 841. If no objection is

made in the trial court, any error committed therein is not preserved for

appellate review. State v. Lloyd, 48,914 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So.

3d 879, writ denied, 15-0307 (La. 11/30/15), 184 So. 3d 33; State v. Ford,

55,450 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24), 379 So. 3d 277. In short, lack of a

contemporaneous objection precludes any argument that the statement was

improperly admitted.

Shannon specifically contends that the trial court’s sustaining many of

the state’s objections prevented him from properly cross-examining BS and

inhibited the jury from having a full picture of the case. In response to
3

Shannon’s argument, the state points out BS was still thoroughly cross-

examined at trial regarding her recorded statement, as well as about several

additional matters relating to the case. The state also argues Shannon tested

the reliability of the recorded statement extensively during his cross-

examination of BS and he has provided no evidentiary or procedural basis

for his claim that the trial court erred in its rulings.

Under the Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to present a

defense. U.S. Const. amend. 6; La. Const. art. I, § 16; Washington v. Texas,

388 U.S. 14, 87 S. Ct. 1920, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1967); State v. Vigee, 518

So. 2d 501 (La. 1988). Additionally, due process affords the defendant the

right of full confrontation and cross-examination of the state’s witnesses.

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297

(1973); State v. Mosby, 595 So. 2d 1135 (La. 1992); State v. Smith, 54,489

(La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/22), 342 So. 3d 1108.

Shannon’s cross-examination of BS expands to 118 pages of the

record. During the course of this cross-examination, 39 objections were

made by the state, 21 of which were either overruled or were directed by the

trial court to be rephrased. The other 18 objections were sustained by the

trial court for various reasons including, but not limited to: (1) the question

had already been asked and answered, (2) the question was a repeat or vague

question, (3) the question was irrelevant, or (4) the question was speculative.

In brief, Shannon refers to nine of these rulings but does not enunciate how

any of them were wrong.

Our review of this lengthy cross-examination reveals Shannon was

given ample opportunity for a sufficient and complete cross-examination of

BS. While we recognize the state did make many objections during the
4

cross-examination, we note the trial court handled each one on an

individualized basis, overruling more than half of them, and there was a

proper basis for the sustained objections. Notably, trial counsel’s repeated

references to the police report were properly excluded; police reports are

expressly excluded from the public records exception to the hearsay rule, La.

C.E. art. 803(8)(b)(i). State v. Moran, 47,804 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/13), 135

So. 3d 677, writ denied, 13-1052 (La. 11/15/13), 125 So. 3d 1101. In

sustaining many of the objections, the trial court specifically articulated its

reasoning for its rulings or directed Shannon to rephrase his question.

Further, on multiple occasions, the trial court allowed Shannon to restate his

question instead of sustaining the state’s objections.

At oral argument, Shannon also claimed the court’s rulings prevented

him from asking the best, most probing question to expose inconsistencies

between BS’s videoed statement and her testimony. While alternative

defense strategies may often appear superior in retrospect, we do not find the

court’s rulings denied Shannon’s constitutional right of confrontation and

cross-examination or prevented him from submitting a defense.

We find Shannon was given more than ample opportunity to fully

cross-examine BS and submit a defense to the jury. This assignment of error

is without merit.

ERROR PATENT

Our review of the record reveals the trial court did not order

Shannon’s sentences to be served at hard labor, although both offenses are

necessarily punishable at hard labor. La. R.S. 14:42; La. R.S. 14:44.1.

While the minutes reflect Shannon’s sentence for second degree kidnapping

is to be served at hard labor, the transcript of the sentencing hearing itself
5

reflects the trial court did not specify that either sentence have this

designation. The trial court’s failure to specifically state on the record

Shannon’s sentences were to be served at hard labor renders the sentences

illegally lenient. State v. Martinez, 52,882 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278

So. 3d 467; State v. Thomas, 52,617 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/22/19), 272 So. 3d

999, writ denied, 19-01045 (La. 2/10/20), 292 So. 3d 61. However, because

both first degree rape and second degree kidnapping require any sentence to

be served at hard labor, the error is self-correcting. Id. Consequently, both

of Shannon’s sentences shall be served at hard labor.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed, we affirm Doyle Shannon’s convictions

and sentences, and note both sentences shall be served at hard labor.

AFFIRMED.

6