State of Louisiana v. Joshua Wiggins

Judgment rendered August 27, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,376-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

JOSHUA WIGGINS Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Bossier, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 247,996

Honorable Michael O. Craig, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Peggy J. Sullivan

JOHN SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

C. CARTER LAWRENCE, JR.
RICHARD RUSSELL RAY
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before COX, MARCOTTE, and ELLENDER, JJ.

ELLENDER, J.

Joshua Wiggins (“Wiggins”) was charged with two counts of

molestation of a juvenile under the age of 13, with the victim in both counts

being his three-year-old daughter, B.W. A unanimous jury found Wiggins

guilty as charged on the first count, but not guilty on the second, and he was

sentenced to serve 25 years at hard labor without the benefit of probation,

parole, or suspension of sentence. Wiggins now appeals, challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence based on witness credibility. Finding no merit to

his arguments, we affirm.

FACTS

Jelisa Haines (“Haines”), B.W.’s mother, testified she became

concerned when Wiggins, who was approximately 35 years old at the time,

behaved inappropriately with their three-year-old daughter following several

incidents where she witnessed Wiggins nude with an erection in B.W.’s

presence. Haines said she was responsible for bathing their daughter most of

the time, but Wiggins would occasionally bathe B.W. when she needed him

to. Haines stated the baths Wiggins gave B.W. lasted between one and 2½

hours, and that he exhibited what she considered inappropriate behavior in

B.W.’s presence while bathing her. She also testified there were occasions

when he would come out of the bathroom naked and swing his genitals

around in front of B.W. She also recalled seeing Wiggins sit at his computer

with B.W. in his lap while watching what she referred to as “anime

pornography.”1 Haines also said she noticed on several occasions after

Wiggins bathed B.W., her bottom appeared red; one of those times,

1
Haines described “anime pornography” as an animated show where the
characters were nude and engaged in sexual activity.

Haines also saw what appeared to be blood on B.W.’s bottom in addition to

the redness.

The molestation charges against Wiggins were based on two specific

instances of inappropriate behavior, the first alleged to have occurred in the

bathtub between January 22, 2022, and April 30, 2023, and the second near

the shower between May 1 and June 23, 2023, both counts in violation of

La. R.S. 14:81.2.

Concerning the allegations in count one, Haines recounted the last

time she allowed Wiggins to bathe B.W. She testified that after Wiggins had

been bathing her for approximately two hours, she walked into the bathroom

to find Wiggins nude, sitting in their small apartment bathtub with B.W.,

who was also nude. B.W. was facing her father and straddling his legs.

Wiggins’ penis was fully erect and, once Haines entered, he quickly grabbed

something to cover his genitals. Wiggins told Haines he had an accidental

erection because B.W.’s body brushed against his genitals at some point

during the bath. Haines stated after this incident, she told Wiggins he could

no longer bathe B.W.

As for count two, which is alleged to have occurred after the bathtub

incident, Haines testified Wiggins was showering at their shared residence

when she heard a noise. She said she went into the bathroom to find him on

the floor with a semi-erect penis; B.W. was standing in the bathroom

looking at his erection, which Wiggins told Haines was the result of him

needing to urinate at that moment. This incident prompted Haines to take

B.W. to Ochsner LSU to be evaluated by a physician. That physician

referred B.W. to the Cara Center for evaluation and examination. Haines

acknowledged she had been concerned about Wiggins’ behavior around
2

B.W. for some time, but said he always managed to convince her she had

nothing to worry about; she blamed her own inexperience in romantic

relationships for not reporting her concerns earlier.

Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office Detective Lavaro Ramey (“Det.

Ramey”) investigated Haines’ allegations after receiving a call from Dr.

Laura Rodriguez (“Dr. Rodriguez”), who examined B.W. at the Cara Center.

During an interview with Det. Ramey, Wiggins stated while he no longer

bathed his daughter after her mother asked him not to, B.W. regularly tried

to get into the bathtub and shower with him. Wiggins denied walking

around naked in B.W.’s presence, swinging his genitals in front of her, or

watching animated pornography with B.W. He stated he did play an

animated romance novel game, but claimed he did not play the game in

B.W.’s presence due to its adult content. When asked about her red bottom

after bathing with him, Wiggins told Det. Ramey the bottom of the bathtub

was very rough and must have scraped B.W.

During his interview with Det. Ramey, Wiggins also denied the

bathtub incident occurred as Haines described it. He said B.W. was seated

in front of him in the bathtub, facing the faucet, with her bottom on the floor

of the tub, rocking back and forth in the water. He stated she rocked back

into him, brushing his lower regions and causing an involuntary erection.

Wiggins also denied any wrongdoing on his part during the shower incident,

stating B.W. snuck into the shower without his noticing while he was

washing soap out of his hair. He said he could not get her out of the shower

or call for help from Haines because he had soap in his hair, so he let her

wash herself since she was already in the shower. When they were getting

out, the shower door swung out and banged into the bathroom door, causing
3

B.W. to nearly fall. When Haines walked in, Wiggins said he was kneeling

on the floor next to B.W., trying to make sure she was not hurt from exiting

the shower. Wiggins denied having an erection following the shower

incident.

Dr. Rodriguez, the medical director for the Cara Center, testified as an

expert in pediatrics with expertise in child abuse. She saw B.W. on June 20,

2023, following a referral from a pediatrician at Ochsner LSU, and stated

Haines’ explanation for bringing B.W. in for evaluation was extremely

concerning to her. Dr. Rodriguez testified the examination of B.W. was

normal, but also stated a normal examination could not confirm or rule out

sexual abuse as the majority of children who have been sexually abused

have normal physical examinations.

Wiggins elected to testify, and he denied intentionally exposing his

genitals in front of B.W., watching animated pornography with B.W. in his

lap, or playing his animated romance game in her presence. He denied

exhibiting any lewd or lascivious conduct or attempting to gratify his own

sexual desires in the presence of his daughter. Wiggins stated the erection

he had in the bathtub incident was involuntary and the result of B.W.

brushing up against his genitals; he also denied having an erection following

the shower incident.

A unanimous jury found Wiggins guilty on count one (the bathtub

incident) and not guilty on count two (the shower incident). The court

denied his post verdict judgment of acquittal and, following a thorough

consideration of the factors listed in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, sentenced

4

Wiggins to 25 years at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or

suspension of sentence.2 Wiggins now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Wiggins contends in order to prove him guilty of molestation, the

state was required to present evidence of lewd or lascivious conduct

intended to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either himself or B.W.,

which he claims the state failed to do. He argues the only evidence

presented was testimony from the mother of the alleged victim, and suggests

because the source of the information is not the victim herself, Haines’

testimony is insufficient to support his conviction. Wiggins inexplicably

contends a reasonable hypothesis existed for Haines to find him nude, seated

in a bathtub, with an erection, while bathing his three-year-old daughter; his

erection was simply an involuntary physical reaction to her accidental

contact with his lower regions. Wiggins asks this court to vacate his

conviction and sentence.

The state argues the evidence presented was more than sufficient to

convict Wiggins: a 35-year-old man was nude with an erection in the

bathtub, while three-year-old B.W., also nude, straddled his legs; clearly a

lewd or lascivious act to gratify Wiggins’ sexual desires. Because the

evidence was sufficient to prove the elements of La. R.S. 14:81.2, the state

contends the jury’s verdict was not irrational, and Wiggins’ conviction

should be affirmed.

2
At sentencing on October 15, 2024, counsel for Wiggins was unaware of the
trial court’s denial of his motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal. Prior to imposing
sentence, the court notified all parties of an order signed on October 9, 2024, denying the
motion.
5

Sufficiency of the Evidence

The standard review for a sufficiency claim is whether, after

reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.

Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Ramsey, 55,491 (La. App.

2 Cir. 2/28/24), 381 So. 3d 308, writ denied, 24-00379 (La. 10/1/24), 393

So. 3d 865.

The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and

circumstantial evidence. This standard, now legislatively embodied in La.

C. Cr. P. art. 821, 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. Middleton, 55,634 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/22/24), 386 So. 3d 1283, writ

denied, 24-00822 (La. 2/19/25), 400 So. 3d 926. The appellate court does

not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. State v.

Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442; Middleton, supra; State v.

Bass, 51,411 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/21/17), 223 So. 3d 1242, writ not cons., 18-

0296 (La. 4/16/18), 239 So. 3d 830. A reviewing court affords great

deference to a trial court’s decision to accept or reject the testimony of a

witness in whole or in part. Middleton, supra; Bass, supra.

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, such

evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S.

15:438. Whether circumstantial evidence excludes every reasonable

hypothesis of innocence presents a question of law. State v. Shapiro, 431

So. 2d 372 (La. 1982); State v. Matthews, 50,838 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/10/16),

200 So. 3d 895, writ denied, 16-1678 (La. 6/5/17), 220 So. 3d 752. In the
6

absence of any internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical

evidence, the testimony of a witness alone, if believed by the trier of fact, is

sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Taylor, 53,934

(La. App. 2 Cir. 5/5/21), 321 So. 3d 486. When a case involves

circumstantial evidence, and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of

innocence presented by the defendant’s own testimony, that hypothesis falls,

and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a

reasonable doubt. State v. Captville, 448 So. 2d 676 (La. 1984); State v.

Matthews, supra.

Molestation of a juvenile is defined as the commission by anyone over

the age of 17 of any lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the

presence of any child under the age of 17, where there is an age difference of

greater than 2 years between the two persons, with the intention of arousing

or gratifying the sexual desires of either person, by the use of force,

violence, duress, menace, psychological intimidation, threat of great bodily

harm, or by the use of influence by virtue of a position of control or

supervision over the juvenile. La. R.S. 14:81.2(A)(1). Whoever commits

the crime of molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13

years shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than 25 years nor more

than 99 years. At least 25 years of the sentence imposed shall be served

without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. La. R.S.

14:81.2(D)(1).

The jury’s finding of guilt is reasonable and well supported by the

record in this case. Haines testified she walked into the bathroom to find

Wiggins, naked in the bathtub, with their three-year-old daughter, who was

also nude and straddling her father’s legs. Wiggins had an erection, which
7

he tried to hide from Haines; the effort at concealment supports the state’s

claim Wiggins was attempting to gratify his own sexual desires while in the

bathtub with B.W., over whom he maintained a position of authority as her

father.

Wiggins did not deny he was naked and erect with his naked young

daughter, but instead tried to offer an explanation as to how and why this

happened. The jury found Haines’ version of what she saw more credible, a

finding that is exceedingly reasonable considering Wiggins’ bizarre

explanation. Haines’ testimony alone is sufficient if believed by the jury,

and there is no support for Wiggins’ assertion that Haines’ version is

somehow insufficient because she was not the victim. Haines’ observation

of what occurred in the bathtub does not irreconcilably contradict any of the

physical evidence presented and is bolstered by her testimony about

Wiggins’ other inappropriate sexually deviant behavior.

Wiggins’ abhorrent conduct with his very own daughter is a shocking

violation of the trust an impressionable young child is owed by her father.

We find the evidence more than sufficient to support Wiggins’ conviction.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, Joshua Wiggins’ conviction and

sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

8