State of Louisiana v. Cristian Jose Vargas Borbon

Judgment rendered December 10, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,638-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

CRISTIAN JOSE VARGAS Appellant
BORBON

*****

Appealed from the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Bossier, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 222,314

Honorable Alexandra Aiello Stahl, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPEALS AND Counsel for Appellant
WRIT SERVICE
By: Michael Mitchell
Remy Starns
Annette Fuller Roach

J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

RICHARD R. RAY
J. CHANCELLOR NERREN
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before PITMAN, COX, and THOMPSON, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

Cristian Jose Vargas Borbon appeals his conviction for first degree

rape, victim under the age of 13, and corresponding sentence of life

imprisonment at hard labor without the possibility of parole, probation, or

suspension of sentence. The victim was the underaged grandchild of his

wife, and the testimony at trial established that the victim was abused while

staying at her father’s trailer home next door to Borbon. Borbon argues that

the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s

unanimous guilty verdict. For the reasons provided in greater detail below,

Borbon’s conviction of first degree rape, victim under age 13, and his

mandatory life sentence are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 11, 2022, Cristian Jose Vargas Borbon (“Borbon”) was

charged with first degree rape of A.G., a victim under the age of 13 (DOB:

4/6/2010), during the period of April 6, 2021, to April 6, 2022, in violation

of La. R.S. 14:42(A)(4). On the same date, Borbon was also charged with

committing indecent behavior with a juvenile, J.G., a victim under the age of

13 (DOB: 7/5/2012), in violation of La. R.S. 14:81(A) and (H)(2), which

matter is addressed in a separate opinion. The two minor victims, A.G. and

J.G., are siblings. The siblings’ cases were tried jointly, and trial

commenced on July 9, 2024. The following testimony and evidence was

introduced at trial relative to the victim, A.G.:

The children’s biological mother testified that the investigation

resulting in the charges being filed against Borbon began on Mother’s Day

in May of 2022. Her son, J.G. (the victim in the companion proceeding),

disclosed to her that his paternal step-grandfather, Borbon, had touched him

over his clothes on his private part. The mother testified that she told J.G. to

report what happened to his school guidance counselor, so she could help the

family contact and report the incident to the police. The mother testified that

the family of the children’s father did not like her, and there had been prior

incidents in which the family accused her of being a liar. Therefore, she did

not call the police herself and instead advised J.G. to report the incident to

the school guidance counselor to involve the police. She testified that J.G.

did report the incident to the school guidance counselor, which is how the

police became involved. It was from this initial report and subsequent

investigation regarding the abuse of J.G. that the rape of A.G. was

discovered.

Detective Kaycee Richards with the Bossier City Police Department

testified at trial that she is assigned to the juvenile division as a detective,

which is a position she held for approximately eight years at the time of trial.

Det. Richards testified she had handled hundreds of juvenile sexual assault

investigations. Det. Richards testified that she was dispatched to J.G.’s

elementary school, where he reported the allegations against Borbon to his

school counselor. During her investigation of J.G.’s allegations, J.G.’s

sister, A.G., the 12-year-old victim in this matter, disclosed sexual abuse by

Borbon to her family. Det. Richards testified that she met A.G. and her

family at the hospital following that disclosure. Det. Richards testified that

due to the delayed disclosure of the abuse, physical evidence was not

collected from either A.G. or her bedroom where the abuse allegedly took

place. Det. Richards testified that in her experience, delayed disclosure is

common in cases of sexual assault against a minor victim.

2

Det. Richards testified that forensic interviews for both children took

place at the Gingerbread House Child Advocacy Center (“Gingerbread

House”) in Shreveport, and that she attended both interviews. Det. Richards

testified that during A.G.’s forensic interview, she disclosed that text

messages between her and Borbon supported her allegations. Det. Richards

testified that a forensic analysis of both A.G. and Borbon’s cell phones was

performed. Texts and screenshots of conversations that took place between

January 9, 2021, and May 1, 2022, were obtained and introduced into

evidence at trial.

Lacie Hadley, the forensic interviewer from the Gingerbread House

who conducted the interviews of both victims, testified at trial. Hadley

testified that A.G. was able to provide sensory details of what Borbon did to

her. Hadley testified A.G. told her she was scared to tell anyone what

happened. A.G. disclosed that Borbon touched her private part and tried to

put his private part in her. A.G. stated it happened in her bedroom at her

father’s house, on the living room couch at Borbon’s house, and on

Borbon’s bed. Hadley testified that A.G. disclosed the inappropriate

behavior started when she was around seven years old and continued until

just before her 12th birthday.

A.G.’s recorded forensic interview was introduced into evidence and

played at trial for the jury. During the interview, A.G. stated that Borbon,

her grandmother’s husband, had done things to her beginning when she was

around seven years old. A.G. stated Borbon started the abuse with touching

her legs and rubbing her private parts. Later, Borbon would put his private

part on her private part. A.G. stated the last time it occurred was two to

3

three weeks before the forensic interview. A.G. stated she did not report the

acts because she was scared of Borbon.

During the recorded forensic interview, A.G. shared text messages

with Hadley that she had saved on her phone from June 2021, in which

Borbon, who lived next door, would text her at night and tell her to let him

in the trailer. A.G. stated when she let him in, he would come to her room,

lie beside her, touch her private parts, pull down his pants, and put his

private part on her private part. A.G. stated he would stop when something

came out of his private part, which would get on the sheets and their clothes.

A.G. stated Borbon would leave, and she would get up and clean up. A.G.

stated that she tried to call out her brother’s name (J.G.) during an encounter,

but Borbon covered her mouth. A.G. stated Borbon made her touch his

private part with her hand, as well as put her lips around his private part.

A.G. recalled these acts occurred three times over the same weekend, right

before her 12th birthday. A.G. stated the most recent encounters occurred in

her father’s trailer; Borbon and her grandmother lived in the trailer next

door. A.G. stated that neither her father nor his girlfriend, Teresa Perez,

ever came out of his bedroom to see what was going on when she let Borbon

into the trailer.

At trial, A.G. testified, confirming that what she provided during her

forensic interview was accurate. A.G. testified regarding the layout of her

father’s trailer and explained how Borbon would gain access to the home

when she was there. A.G. testified that sometimes Borbon would enter

through the unlocked door, and sometimes she would let him in. A.G.

testified that if her father was at home, he stayed in his bedroom when

Borbon came into the home.
4

A.G. testified at length regarding numerous text messages between

her and Borbon. The State introduced 18 text messages from Borbon,

mostly between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 12:00 A.M., in which Borbon

requested to come over to A.G.’s bedroom. A.G. often responded “no” to

these text messages. Notably, none of the text messages were initiated by

A.G. In one exchange from June 17, 2021, at 10:44 P.M., Borbon text

messaged A.G., “I’m going to sleep with you.” A.G. testified she

responded, “[w]hy,” and Borbon responded back, “Cause (sic) I want.”

A.G. testified that she refused to open the trailer for Borbon numerous times

but did let him in sometimes.

A.G. testified regarding an instance when Borbon tried to put his

private part in her, but it hurt, and she tried to scream. A.G. testified Borbon

covered her mouth and stopped. A.G. also testified that Borbon would not

come over if he knew her brother, J.G., was still awake, because the two

children slept in the same bed. A.G. stated J.G. was a heavy sleeper and

would not wake up, even in response to noise. A.G. acknowledged that she

did not tell her father or Teresa about Borbon’s abuse.

Teresa Perez testified at trial; she dated A.G.’s father for over two

years and lived in his trailer home from September 2020 through February

2022. Perez testified that you could hear everything in the home. Perez

testified that the children went to bed very late on the weekends when she

was there. Perez denied that she ever heard Borbon come into the house at

night during the time she lived in the home, and she had never heard

anything inappropriate between Borbon and either child.

Borbon testified he is originally from Costa Rica. Borbon testified

through a translator in his own defense. Borbon denied the allegations
5

against him. Borbon testified that he was 52 years old and had lived in the

United States for approximately 32 years. Borbon testified he was not A.G.

or J.G.’s biological grandfather and was related to the children through

marriage to his wife, their grandmother. Regarding the text messages on

A.G.’s phone about opening the door and wanting to sleep with her, Borbon

explained that the children were often up past their bedtime. Borbon

explained that his bedroom window faced the children’s window next door,

and he and his wife could see when the children were still awake. Borbon

explained that he told the children to turn off electronics and go to bed

numerous times. Borbon testified he would sometimes threaten to come

over and sleep with them so they would go to bed. Borbon testified he and

his wife had been involved in disciplining the children since they were

babies. Borbon testified that when he did go over to ensure the children

were asleep, his wife went with him. Borbon denied raping A.G. or sexually

abusing her, and denied he had ever been alone with A.G.

The two-day jury trial concluded on July 11, 2024. The jury returned

verdicts of guilty as charged on both charges – in this matter of first degree

rape, victim under 13 (A.G.), and in the corollary matter, of indecent

behavior with a juvenile, victim under 13 (J.G.).

On December 10, 2024, Borbon was sentenced to serve life

imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or

suspension of sentence for the first degree rape of A.G. This sentence was

ordered to be served consecutively with the 12-year, hard labor sentence

imposed in relation to his indecent behavior with a juvenile charge. The

Louisiana Appellate Project was appointed to represent Borbon, and this

appeal followed.
6

DISCUSSION

Assignment of Error No. 1: When reviewed under the Jackson v.
Virginia standard, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Cristian Borbon committed the offense of first
degree rape of A.G., a child under the age of thirteen.

In his sole assignment of error, Borbon asserts the evidence was

insufficient to convict him of first degree rape, victim under 13. Borbon

argues that A.G. provided little detail as to any alleged act of sexual abuse

and her descriptions were too vague to determine the validity of her

allegations against him. Borbon argues that A.G.’s testimony was internally

inconsistent and unbelievable regarding the details she provided.

Borbon argues that none of the text messages discussed at trial were

of a sexual nature, though there were references to “sleep with you” within

the texts. Borbon notes that A.G. did not report any of the alleged

inappropriate sexual behavior to anyone until after her brother, J.G., reported

he had been inappropriately touched. Borbon asserts that delayed reporting

is a factor when evaluating the credibility of a witness.

Borbon argues that A.G.’s forensic interview and her trial testimony

were internally inconsistent, and they were also inconsistent with each other.

Further, despite the presence of many other adults and her sibling, no one

heard or observed any inappropriate behavior. Borbon argues that A.G.

failed to give sufficient details as to the alleged sexual act for a rational juror

to be able to weigh the evidence and determine the elements of first degree

rape were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Borbon asserts there was not sufficient evidence that he raped A.G.

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is

whether, after viewing the case in a light most favorable to the prosecution,

7

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. Tate, 01-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851

So. 2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124 S. Ct. 1604, 158 L. Ed. 2d 248

(2004); State v. Steines, 51,698 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/15/17), 245 So. 3d 224.

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. Steines, supra.

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; Steines, supra. 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. Steines, supra.

It is the province of the fact finder to resolve conflicting inferences

from the evidence. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable

conflict with physical evidence, the testimony of one witness – if believed

by the trier of fact – is sufficient to support the requisite factual conclusion.

Such testimony alone is sufficient even where the state does not introduce

medical, scientific, or physical evidence. This is equally applicable to the

testimony of sexual assault victims. State v. Brooks, 52,249 (La. App. 2 Cir.

9/26/18), 256 So. 3d 524; Steines, supra.

La. R.S. 14:42 provides, in pertinent part:

A. First degree rape is a rape committed upon a person sixty-five
years of age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual
intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim
because it is committed under any one or more of the following
circumstances:
***

8

(4) When the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Lack of
knowledge of the victim’s age shall not be a defense.

We find there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to convict

Borbon of first degree rape of A.G. A.G. testified at trial that Borbon

vaginally raped her multiple times over a period of several years, starting

when she was seven years old. Additionally, her recorded forensic interview

also established that Borbon committed first degree rape, with the most

recent incidents occurring just before his abuse was first reported to the

police by A.G.’s sibling, J.G. The victim’s testimony alone satisfies the

elements of first degree rape under La. R.S. 14:42(A)(4) and sufficiently

proves Borbon’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, A.G.’s

testimony at trial and her forensic interview did not contain internal

contradictions, as Borbon attempts to argue. Hadley, the forensic

interviewer, noted that A.G. recalled specific sensory details about the

abuse, the methods Borbon used to gain access to her, details of how and

where he touched her, and the multiple locations the abuse occurred.

Finally, the numerous late-night text messages from Borbon asking if A.G.

was awake, telling her he was coming to sleep with her, and even stating

simply he was coming over to her bedroom because he wanted to, provided

additional support for A.G.’s testimony that he was abusing her.

The evidence contained in the record does not suggest that the jury’s

credibility determination should be disturbed by this Court. The evidence

was sufficient to prove the elements of the offense of first degree rape,

beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, Borbon’s assignment of error is

without merit. Accordingly, his conviction is affirmed.

9

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Borbon’s conviction for first degree rape of

A.G., a victim under age 13, and his life sentence without benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

10