State of Louisiana v. Treydarrius Wright

Judgment rendered October 2, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,817-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

TREYDARRIUS WRIGHT Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 386,656

Honorable John D. Mosely, Jr., Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Edward Kelly Bauman

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

ALEX L. PORUBSKY
CHEYENNE YVETTE WILSON
COURTNEY RAY
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before STONE, ROBINSON, and HUNTER, JJ.

HUNTER, J.

Defendant, Treydarrius Wright, was charged by amended bill of

information with second degree rape, in violation of La. R.S. 14:42.1(A)(2).

Following a trial, a unanimous jury found defendant guilty as charged. He

was sentenced to serve 35 years at hard labor without the benefit of parole,

probation, or suspension of sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On July 30, 2021, 20-year-old M.G.1 was shopping at a mall in

Bossier City, Louisiana when she encountered defendant, Treydarrius

Wright. Defendant approached M.G., called her by her first name, and

claimed he knew her “from school.” Although M.G. did not recognize

defendant, she engaged in a conversation with him. Defendant told M.G. his

name was “Jay,” he was 22 years old, and he was originally from the State

of California.2 Defendant and M.G. exchanged telephone numbers and

traded messages throughout the day; they made plans to meet later in the

day.

Defendant picked M.G. up from her apartment at approximately 5:00

p.m. They first went to Party Central Family Fun Center in Bossier, where

they ate and played games. They later attended a party at a biker club.

While at the party, defendant accused M.G. of acting standoffish and “too

boujee” because she preferred to sit alone. M.G. indicated she was ready to

leave. However, during the ride home, M.G. changed her mind and agreed

1
Since M.G. was the victim of a sex crime, she and her family members will be
referred to by their initials. See, La. R.S. 46:1844(W).
2
Defendant’s actual nickname is “Trey,” he was 25 years old, and he is not from
California.

to accompany defendant to a liquor store in Shreveport where he purchased

a bottle of Patrón (tequila).

After leaving the store, defendant drove M.G. to the home of his half-

brother, Shamareio Bryant. When they arrived, M.G. discovered she was

acquainted with Bryant because they had attended middle school together

and had dated in the past.3 Shortly after arriving at Bryant’s home,

defendant entered the bathroom, and witnesses testified they could hear

“tapping” or “banging” noises coming from the bathroom. One of the

guests, Jakhair Perrow, went to investigate the noise, and he observed

defendant using a hammer to crush a “large pill.” When defendant emerged

from the bathroom, he began pouring shots of tequila for everyone at the

house.

M.G. testified when defendant gave her the shot, “something told” her

to refuse the drink, and she attempted to pour it out. However, defendant

saw her trying to pour out the drink and accused her of “trying to fake out.”

Upon defendant’s insistence, M.G. drank the shot of tequila. M.G. testified

she immediately began to experience dizziness and light-headedness, “like

the world started spinning.” She also stated she became nauseous and “felt

really weak.” M.G. testified she drinks alcohol occasionally, and she had

never experienced such a reaction after consuming alcohol.

Thereafter, defendant and M.G., accompanied by Bryant, returned to

the biker club. By the time they arrived at the club, M.G. had difficulty

walking unassisted and stated she did not “feel right.” M.G. was unable to

Present at Bryant’s house were Bryant, Jakhair Perrow, Tyler Stewart, and two
3

women identified only by their first names, DeErica and Keria.

2

recall anything after arriving at the biker club. She stated, “I just remember

us walking up [to the biker club], and I don’t remember much after that. ***

I just remember waking up the next morning.”

M.G. shared an apartment with her younger sister, MG-2. MG-2

testified defendant and M.G. arrived at the apartment between 12:00 a.m.

and 1:00 a.m. on July 31, 2021. MG-2 also testified defendant told her his

name was “Jay,” and he was carrying M.G. over his shoulder. MG-2

described M.G.’s condition as “limp,” “unresponsive, and “blacked out,”

and she stated defendant “started panicking” when she inquired about her

sister’s condition. According to MG-2, defendant told her he believed

“somebody laced” M.G.’s drink. Defendant then ran down the stairs and

left. MG-2 was unable to awaken M.G., so called her mother via Face-

Time.4

When M.G. awakened the following day, she texted defendant and

asked what happened the previous night. Defendant responded by telling

M.G. she had gotten “really drunk,” and he had taken her home. M.G.

testified seconds after she received the text message from defendant, she

received a telephone call from Bryant, who informed her he had received a

text message from defendant. Bryant sent a screenshot of defendant’s text

message to M.G., which provided as follows:

I’m going to call you. You need to say you went to Party
Central with a girl. You had my truck and had sex in the

4
C.B., M.G.’s mother, also testified. She stated she was at the apartment before
M.G. left for her date with M.G., and M.G. was behaving normally. Later that night, one
of her daughters called her via FaceTime, and she could see M.G. “was not responsive”
and was “just limp.” C.B. testified she instructed her daughter to call 9-1-1.

3

[console], and be like you had my truck, and I was ducked off
at your crib.[ 5]

After receiving the text message from Bryant, M.G. suspected

defendant had engaged in sexual intercourse with her while she was

unresponsive. M.G. testified she reached out to defendant, accused him of

lying to her and asked him if he had raped her or “did something without my

consent.” Defendant denied doing so.

M.G. presented to Ochsner-LSU Health Medical Center in

Shreveport, where the hospital personnel notified the Shreveport Police

Department (“SPD”). M.G. was examined by a sexual assault nurse

examiner (“SANE”), who collected biological evidence using a physical

evidence recovery kit (“PERK”). The nurse obtained swab samples from

M.G.’s external genitalia, vaginal, perineal, anal and cervical areas.

Subsequent testing for deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) revealed the semen

extracted during M.G.’s sexual assault examination matched defendant’s

DNA. The nurse also drew blood for toxicology testing which later revealed

M.G. had Clonazolam, a benzodiazepine, and carboxy tetrahydrocannabinol,

a metabolite of THC (the active component of marijuana), in her system.

M.G. was also interviewed by police officers, and she identified

defendant as the person she believed had sexually assaulted her. M.G. was

provided a photographic lineup; she selected defendant from the array of

photographs as the person she had met and gone out with on July 30, 2021.

Months later, defendant was interviewed by officers from the SPD.

After being informed of his Miranda rights, defendant signed a waiver of

5
M.G. later provided the screenshot of the text message to the Shreveport Police
Department.

4

rights form. Defendant admitted he met M.G. at the mall, picked her up

from her home, took her to his half-brother’s house, and poured tequila shots

for those gathered at the house. Defendant also stated M.G. consumed only

one shot of tequila. He denied crushing any pills at Bryant’s house, putting

drugs in M.G.’s drink, and engaging in sexual intercourse with her.

Defendant claimed he sent the text message to Bryant because he was

married, and his wife had found a box of condoms in his truck.6

Defendant was arrested and initially charged with mingling harmful

substances, in violation of La. R.S. 14:38.1. The bill of information was

later amended to charge defendant with mingling harmful substances and

second degree rape, a violation of La. R.S. 14:42.1(A)(2). Thereafter, the

bill was amended again to charge defendant with second degree rape.

After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, a unanimous

jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court denied defendant’s

motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and new trial. He was

sentenced to serve 35 years at hard labor without the benefit of parole,

probation, or suspension of sentence. The trial court also ordered defendant

to register as a sex offender within 10 days of his release from prison.

Defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider sentence but did not state any

specific reasons for the motion. The trial court denied the motion to

reconsider sentence.

Defendant appeals.

6
Defendant’s interview with police officers was videotaped. The video recording
was played for the jury during the trial.

5

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his

conviction for second degree rape. He argues none of the witnesses saw him

place any narcotic, anesthetic agent, or controlled dangerous substance in

M.G.’s shot of tequila. He also maintains M.G. was unable to recall

anything that happened after she left the biker club; therefore, according to

defendant, it is possible M.G. voluntarily consumed drugs that night but

does not recall doing so. Defendant also argues M.G. may have also

consented to engaging in sexual intercourse with him, but due to consuming

drugs, she is unable to recall the act. Therefore, defendant argues his

conviction should be reversed.

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must

consider whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v.

Leger, 17-2084 (La. 6/26/19), 284 So. 3d 609; State v. Frost, 53,312 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 3/4/20), 293 So. 3d 708, writ denied, 20-00628 (La. 11/18/20),

304 So. 3d 416. The Jackson standard does not provide the appellate court

with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of

the fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So. 2d 517.

The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or

reweigh evidence, and accords great deference to the trier of fact’s decision

to accept or reject witness testimony in whole or in part. State v. McFarlin,

54,754 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/25/23), 354 So. 3d 888, writ denied, 23-00261 (La.

6

10/17/23), 371 So. 3d 1078; State v. Frost, supra. Where there is conflicting

testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a

determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the issue is the weight of

the evidence, not its sufficiency. In the absence of internal contradiction or

irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness’s testimony, if

believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual

conclusion. State v. McFarlin, supra; State v. Gullette, 43,032 (La. App. 2

Cir. 2/13/08), 975 So. 2d 753. This principle is equally applicable to victims

of sexual assault; such testimony alone is sufficient even when the state

offers no medical, scientific or physical evidence to prove the commission of

the offense by the defendant. State v. McFarlin, supra; State ex rel. P.R.R.,

Jr., 45,405 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/19/10), 36 So. 3d 1138.

Second degree rape occurs when the oral or vaginal sexual intercourse

is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim because it is

committed when the victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the

nature of the act by reason of stupor or abnormal condition of the mind

produced by a narcotic or anesthetic agent or other controlled dangerous

substance administered by the offender and without the knowledge of the

victim. La. R.S. 14:42.1(A)(2).

During the trial, M.G. testified as to the events of July 30-31, 2021.

She stated she had never heard of Clonazolam, she did not knowingly

consume the drug, and she did not agree to take any substances on July 30,

2021. She also stated she was not aware anything other than Patrón was in

the shot she drank, and she did not consent to be given anything other than a

shot of Patrón. Further, M.G. testified she did not consent to engaging in

7

sexual intercourse with defendant. She also stated she did not knowingly

take any prescription medications or consume any recreational drugs in July

2021. She testified when she drank the shot of Patrón defendant handed to

her, she believed it contained only tequila.

Shamareio Bryant testified defendant called him on the night of the

incident and told him he was bringing a woman to his house. According to

Bryant, when defendant and M.G. arrived at his house, he saw defendant go

into the bathroom. Shortly thereafter, Bryant heard a tapping noise coming

from the bathroom, and his cousin, Jakhair Perrow, told him he saw

defendant in the bathroom crushing a large pill with a hammer. When he

emerged from the bathroom, defendant poured everyone a shot of tequila.

Bryant stated he and Perrow did not drink the shot.

Bryant also testified as to their excursion to the biker club. He stated

although it was cold inside the club, M.G. was sweating and appeared to be

experiencing memory loss. Bryant testified he told defendant he needed to

take M.G. home. He stated when they left the club, defendant became angry

because M.G. kept calling Bryant’s name and asking Bryant to help her.

Bryant also testified defendant dropped him off at home, and when they

arrived at his house, defendant shoved him and asked, “How am I going to

f**k her now? The only thing she know[s] is Shamareio.” Bryant also stated

defendant left with M.G. in his vehicle, and told him he would be back in 30

minutes; however, defendant did not return until “two or three hours” later.

Bryant stated the following morning, he received text messages from

defendant, defendant’s wife, and M.G.’s sister. He acknowledged the text

8

message defendant sent him instructing him (Bryant) to lie for him

(defendant).

Jakhair Perrow testified he was at Bryant’s home on July 30, 2021.

He stated defendant entered the house, greeted Bryant, and went into the

bathroom. Perrow also testified he heard a “loud banging” coming from the

bathroom, so he went to investigate. He stated he “picked the lock” to the

bathroom door, and he saw defendant “beating on an oversized pill” with a

hammer. According to Perrow, when defendant exited the bathroom, he

“was trying to pour everybody shots.” Perrow stated he “threw [the shot] to

the side” because he did not “know what was in it” due to what he had

observed defendant doing in the bathroom. Perrow also testified M.G. did

not want to drink the shot prepared by defendant, but defendant “kept trying

to put pressure on her to take it, and she finally took it.” Perrow reiterated

he saw defendant crushing a pill with a hammer. However, he admitted he

did not know what happened to the pill thereafter.

Tyler Stewart testified he was also present at Bryant’s house on the

night of July 30, 2021. He stated defendant and M.G. arrived at the house,

and defendant instructed him to call him “Jay.” Stewart also stated after

defendant went into the bathroom, he heard a “beating” sound, and Perrow

told him defendant was “beating on something.” He also stated when

defendant exited the bathroom, he “told us to take a shot.” He testified he

saw defendant give M.G. a shot, and he saw her drink it. Stewart further

stated M.G. started “wiggling” soon after she consumed the drink, and

defendant “leaned over to us and said he got her – he got her something.”

9

Stewart testified after Perrow told him what he had witnessed defendant

doing in the bathroom, he inferred defendant had laced M.G.’s drink.

Olivia Jones testified as an expert in forensic sexual assault

examination. She stated she was called to Ochsner LSU-Shreveport to

examine M.G. on July 31, 2021. Jones testified she collected vaginal swabs,

cervical swabs, vaginal washings, external genitalia swabs, perineal swabs,

and anal swabs from M.G. during the examination. She also drew blood and

collected a urine sample for toxicology testing.7 Jones further stated M.G.’s

physical examination did not reveal any overt signs of injury, such as

vaginal tears or abrasions, and she would not expect to observe vaginal

tearing on adult females who are sexually active.

Kari Dicken, a forensic DNA analyst for the North Louisiana Crime

Laboratory in Shreveport, testified as an expert in forensic DNA analysis.

She testified she examined the forensic examination swabs taken from M.G.

during the sexual assault examination, in addition to the reference sample

obtained from defendant, and she was able to isolate sperm DNA taken from

the swabs. She determined the DNA on the swabs belonged to M.G. and

defendant.8 Dicken also testified the semen was likely put into M.G.’s

7
Corporal David Karam, a sex crimes detective, took possession of the PERK and
all other evidence, including the panties M.G. was wearing the night of the incident. He
transported the items to the sex crimes unit.
8
Dicken testified the probability of another person with the same male DNA
profile consistent with that taken from M.G.’s external genitalia swab would be
approximately one in 3.18 quadrillion (one million billion); the probability of finding the
same DNA as defendant’s DNA obtained from M.G.’s perineal swab would be one in
11.5 quintillion (one billion billion); the probability of finding the same DNA as
defendant’s DNA obtained from M.G.’s vaginal swab would be one in 3.46 trillion (one
thousand billion); the probability of finding the same DNA as defendant’s DNA obtained
from M.G.’s cervical swab would be one in 10.5 quadrillion (one million billion); and the
probability of finding the same DNA as defendant’s DNA obtained from M.G.’s vaginal
washings swab would be one in 17.9 quadrillion (one million billion). Dicken was
unable to interpret the DNA obtained from the anal swab.

10

vagina “from the assault or from the sexual activity.” During cross-

examination, Dicken admitted she did not know when defendant’s DNA was

placed in M.G., and she did not know whether defendant and M.G. engaged

in consensual sexual intercourse.

Emily Raley, a forensic scientist in the toxicology section of the North

Louisiana Crime Laboratory, testified as an expert in the field of forensic

toxicology. Raley testified she analyzed the blood and urine samples

obtained from M.G. She stated the blood testing detected the presence of

Clonazolam, and the urine testing detected the presence of carboxy

tetrahydrocannabinol, a metabolite of THC (the active component in

marijuana). According to Raley, the Clonazolam, a Schedule I controlled

dangerous substance, is known as a “designer benzodiazepine.” She stated

the drug has not been approved for medical use, is not used in hospitals or

prescribed by physicians, is geared toward illicit black-market dealings, and

is typically purchased online. Raley also testified Clonazolam suppresses

the central nervous system and causes sleepiness, sedation, slurred speech,

amnesia, respiratory depression, coma, and loss of consciousness. She

stated it is unknown how much Clonazolam M.G. ingested. She further

testified because Clonazolam is a street drug and not approved for use, little

is known about its concentration or how long it remains in a person’s system

after use.

Corporal David Karam, of the SPD, testified he was employed as a

sex crimes detective on July 31, 2021, and he was responsible for

investigating sexual assault cases. He stated he took possession of the

PERK, toxicology kit, and M.G.’s clothing; he transported the items to the

11

sex crimes bureau. Cpl. Karam also testified he requested a photographic

lineup to present to M.G.9 He further stated he interviewed defendant on

December 8, 2021.10 Cpl. Karam stated during the interview, defendant’s

account of the events of July 30-31, 2021, was the similar to the accounts

provided by M.G. and other witnesses. Cpl. Karam also stated defendant

admitted to sending the text message to Bryant, instructing Bryant to say he

went to Party Central with a girl and engaged in sexual intercourse with the

girl in defendant’s truck. However, defendant denied having sexual

intercourse with M.G., and he denied lacing M.G.’s drink with a drug. Cpl.

Karam stated defendant was charged with second degree rape based upon

the statements provided by witnesses and the results of the PERK and

toxicology.

The record shows the State presented evidence to establish defendant

was seen crushing a “large pill” with a hammer, and shortly thereafter, he

poured M.G. a shot of Patrón. M.G. drank the shot and immediately began

feeling unwell. M.G. does not remember much of what occurred after she

took the shot of Patrón. Bryant testified M.G. was unable to walk without

assistance by the time they left the biker club, and MG-2 testified M.G. was

unconscious when defendant brought her home. Based on the evidence, the

jury apparently inferred defendant placed the Clonazolam into M.G.’s drink

and later took advantage of her apparent stupor by engaging in sexual

intercourse with her without her consent, as she was prevented from

9
Cpl. Karam testified every photographic lineup is sent to the Louisiana State
Analytical Fusion Center, which compiles lineups containing a photograph of the suspect,
as well as “filler photographs” of persons of similar race, sex, build, skin tone, and facial
features.
10
The relevant portions of the recorded interview was played for the jury.

12

resisting these acts by defendant’s action of lacing M.G.’s drink with the

drug. The jury considered the physical evidence, heard the testimony and

weighed the credibility of the witnesses. In reaching its verdict, the jury

reasonably found the testimony of M.G., Bryant, Perrow, Stewart, and MG-2

to be more credible than defendant’s version of the events. Considering the

evidence presented in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude the

record supports the jury’s determination the State proved defendant’s guilt

of second degree rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant also contends the sentence imposed, 35 years without the

benefit of probation, parole, of suspension of sentence, is constitutionally

excessive under the facts of this case. He argues as follows: the sentencing

range for second degree rape is five to 40 years, and the 35-year sentence is

a near-maximum sentence; the trial court failed to articulate any mitigating

factors; the court failed to consider defendant did not have any prior sex-

related offenses; and the court did not order a PSI and did not mention any

factors, such as defendant’s background, personal life, education, family, or

other relevant factors.

We note defense counsel made an oral objection to the sentence at the

hearing and filed a motion to reconsider sentence. However, neither

included specific grounds. In the motion to reconsider sentence, defendant

did not argue that the trial court failed to provide a factual basis to justify the

35-year sentence, and he did not argue the trial court failed to consider none

of his prior criminal offenses were sex offenses.

Ordinarily, appellate review of sentences for excessiveness utilizes a

two-step process. However, when the motion to reconsider sentence raised

13

only a claim of constitutional excessiveness, a defendant is relegated to

review of the sentence on that ground alone. La. C. Cr. P. art. 881.1(E);

State v. Mims, 619 So. 2d 1059 (La. 1993); State v. Parfait, 52,857 (La. App.

2 Cir. 8/14/19), 278 So. 2d 455, writ denied, 19-01659 (La. 12/10/19), 285

So. 3d 489; State v. Williams, 51,667 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 245 So. 3d

131.

A sentence violates La. Const. art. I, § 20 if it is grossly out of

proportion to the seriousness of the offense or nothing more than a

purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Dorthey,

623 So. 2d 1276 (La. 1993); State v. Lindsey, 50,324 (La. App. 2 Cir.

2/24/16), 189 So. 3d 1104. A sentence is considered grossly

disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are viewed in light of

the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. Id. The trial court

has wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within the statutory limits,

and such sentences should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of an

abuse of discretion. State v. Williams, 03-3514 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So. 2d 7;

State v. Allen, 49,642 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/15), 162 So. 3d 519, writ denied,

15-0608 (La. 1/25/16), 184 So. 3d 1289.

The maximum and minimum sentences for second degree rape are set

forth in La. R.S. 14:42.1(B). The sentencing range for second degree rape is

five to 40 years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or

suspension of sentence.

In the instant case, the trial court did not order a PSI. Prior to

imposing defendant’s sentence, the court stated:

So [the] Court also looks at the criminal history of the
defendant as well as the number of pending charges. Defendant

14

has a history of criminal activity and that – that it shows a
pattern of criminal – continuous criminal activities. The Court
also having considered Article 893 – the provisions of Article
893 as well as the provisions of Article 894[.1], a lesser
sentence would deprecate the seriousness of the offense;
therefore, Court will sentence the defendant to 35 years hard
labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of
sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence he’s
required to serve. Credit is given for time served.
***

The evidence established defendant, posing as “Jay” from California,

invited M.G. out on a date. Defendant, armed with Clonazolam, crushed the

pill, placed the drug in a shot of Patrón, and served the drink to M.G. After

M.G. became so incapacitated that she was falling asleep and unable to walk

without assistance, defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with her without

her knowledge or consent. Defendant was fully aware M.G. was particularly

vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to her incapacitated state. The

sentencing judge stated he considered the facts of the case, as well as

defendant’s criminal history. The court noted it had considered the factors

set forth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, and a lesser sentence would deprecate the

seriousness of the offense. Based on this record, we find the sentence

imposed is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of offense and does

not shock the sense of justice. Consequently, we find the a 35-year sentence

imposed is not constitutionally excessive.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant’s conviction and

sentence.

AFFIRMED.

15