State in the Interest of J.D. B

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-1061

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.B.

************

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 22,546
HONORABLE RONALD F. WARE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

JIMMIE C. PETERS
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, James T. Genovese, and David E. Chatelain,*
Judges.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

John Foster DeRosier
District Attorney
Carla S. Sigler
Assistant District Attorney
Fourteenth Judicial District
1020 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

*
Honorable David E. Chatelain participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana
Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

Annette Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
P.O. Box 1747
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(337) 436-3384
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
J.D.B.

PETERS, J.

J.D.B.,1 a juvenile, appeals his adjudication as a delinquent for having

committed sexual battery as defined in La.R.S. 14:43.1. In his single assignment of

error, he asserts that the evidence submitted in his case was insufficient to establish

all of the elements of the offense of sexual battery beyond a reasonable doubt. For

the following reasons, we affirm J.D.B.’s adjudication of delinquency and remand the

matter to the juvenile court with instructions to advise J.D.B. of the provisions of

La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

On July 14, 2009, the State of Louisiana (state) filed a petition seeking to have

J.D.B. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the juvenile”) adjudicated a delinquent.

The petition asserted that between February 2, 2008, and November 9, 2008, the

juvenile committed three different acts that would justify him being adjudicated a

delinquent: (1) aggravated rape as defined in La.R.S. 14:42(A)(4), (2) indecent

behavior with a juvenile as defined in La.R.S. 14:81, and (3) sexual battery as defined

in La.R.S. 14:43.1. After trial, the juvenile court found that the state failed to produce

sufficient evidence to support the first two charges, but concluded that the state had

established beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile had committed an act of

sexual battery. Based on this conclusion, the juvenile court adjudicated the juvenile

to be a delinquent. Subsequently, the juvenile court entered a disposition of the case,

placing the juvenile on probation for a period not to exceed his eighteenth birthday

and caused the probation to be subject to special conditions. In this appeal, the

juvenile questions only the adjudication.

1
Initials will be used to identify the parties pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 412 and La.R.S.
46:1844(W).

The record reflects that the juvenile was born on September 5, 1994.

Therefore, he was fourteen or fifteen years old at the time of the charged delinquent

acts, depending on when in the time period at issue the offense occurred. The victim,

J.N.M. (hereinafter, and for clarity of the record, J.N.M. will sometimes be referred

to only as “the victim”), was born on February 8, 2002, and was, therefore, six years

old at the time of the alleged delinquent act. The juvenile and the victim lived in the

same immediate neighborhood at the time of the charged delinquent acts, and, despite

the significant age difference, they often played together with their siblings.2

The primary evidence against J.D.B. was supplied by the testimony of J.N.M.

According to J.N.M., the juvenile had a history of unwanted attention toward her,

and, when they were alone, the juvenile’s attention became physical. As an example

of this behavior, the victim related one instance when the neighborhood children were

riding their bikes. According to J.N.M., J.D.B. took her into the backyard and kissed

her forehead, lips, and cheeks. She could not even hide during the times when the

children played hide and seek without J.D.B. following her.

With regard to the charges now before this court, J.N.M. testified that on

different occasions, J.D.B. caused her to lick his “private part,” and he licked and

kissed her “private part;” bumped her against his “private part” as he was holding her

from behind; and “stuck his private part in [her] butt.”3 On each occasion, according

to J.N.M., J.D.B. told her not to tell anyone what he had done.

J.D.B.’s inappropriate behavior was ultimately called to the attention of

J.N.M.’s mother, L.B., in early November of 2008, when J.N.M.’s older brother

2
J.D.B. has two sisters, N.D. and J.D., while J.N.M. has one brother, J.P.M. All are juveniles.
3
Other evidence in the record makes it clear that when describing this activity, J.N.M. was
referencing the sexual organs of the male and female.

2

overheard his sister state that J.D.B. had kissed her. L.B. testified that when she

confronted her daughter on November 10, 2008, J.N.M. began to cry and told her

that:

[J.D.B.] was swinging her around in the back yard, kissing her on her
lips and her forehead, kissed her private part, made her kiss his, stuck
his hand in her pants, bent her over and tried to stick his private part or
pushed his private part against her, her behind. And that’s why she
stated her butt would itch sometimes because of that. And he told her
not to tell anyone because they would get in trouble.

According to L.B., her daughter’s tears were because she thought she was going to

be in trouble for allowing the activity to occur. Unfortunately, J.N.M. could not

provide her mother with any specific dates or date references for the inappropriate

behavior.

L.B. immediately telephoned the Lake Charles City Police and reported what

J.N.M. had told her. Lake Charles Police Officers Timothy Milburn and Jason

Dereese initially responded to L.B.’s telephone call, but after talking with L.B.,

concluded that this was a sex offense requiring the services of someone in the

department’s Sex Crimes Division. Officer Milburn contacted Detective Takisha

Robertson, of the Sex Crimes Division, who arrived at the scene and took over the

investigation. Neither Officer Milburn nor Officer Dereese talked to J.N.M. before

Detective Robertson’s arrival.4

Detective Robertson testified that based on the information supplied to her at

the scene,5 she did not recommend a sexual assault examination because there was no

4
Officer Milburn testified that department protocol prevented him from speaking with a child
victim of sexual assault unless an emergency existed, and no emergency existed in this case because
the incidents had not occurred in the immediate past.
5
In addition to speaking with the detective, L.B. provided the detective with the handwritten
notes that she had taken during her discussion with her daughter. These notes were offered into
evidence at trial and read as follows:

3

concrete date for the offenses, and sexual assault examinations are only performed if

the conduct at issue occurred within seventy-two hours prior to receiving the report.

Detective Robertson then made arrangements for J.N.M. to be interviewed at the local

Children’s Advocacy Center.

J.N.M.’s initial interview with Erica Simon, a forensic interviewer with the

Children’s Advocacy Center, occurred on November 13, 2008. A video tape of that

interview was introduced into evidence. We partially summarize the content of the

interview as follows:

J.N.M. stated she was six years old, was in the first grade, and
lived with her parents and one of her brothers. She told the interviewer
that her parents had brought her to the Child Advocacy Center so she
could talk about what the Juvenile did. J.N.M. said the Juvenile chased
her to kiss her on her lips, cheeks, and forehead. This made her feel sad
because it was only okay for family to kiss her. The Juvenile asked her
if she liked it, and she told him, “no.” J.N.M. related that the Juvenile
had taken her into his room when no one else was home. J.N.M.
explained that the Juvenile would take her into his yard to kiss her. This
happened more than one time, and the first time happened halfway to his
birthday. On that occasion the Juvenile kept asking while they were
playing, and J.N.M. kept saying no. J.N.M. did not want to get into
trouble. J.N.M. added that the Juvenile had used his hand to touch her
middle spot while they were in his front yard. Again, the Juvenile asked
if she liked it, and J.N.M. replied, “no.” The contact was on top of her
clothing. J.N.M. further alleged that the Juvenile had taken her either
from or into the backyard and kissed her when she was playing with her
friends. On that occasion, the Juvenile’s uncle and mother were
standing by the garage, but they did not see. J.N.M. then said the adults
were in the back, and the Juvenile took her to the front. J.N.M. next
declared that the Juvenile had stuck his private spot in her butt while
they were in his room. This happened on the same day she had been
playing school in his back yard. The Juvenile brought her inside and put
his private spot in her butt. Gesturing to her crotch, J.N.M. said she saw

Kissed me on my lips[,] touched me on my middle spot[,] touched me on my
butt[,] tr[i]ed to pull my pants down[,] swung me around. Asked him to put me
down[,] asked me to give him a kiss [in the] shedd [sic]. [N]obody in yard. [The
Juvenile] showed me his middle, made me kiss his middle spot[,] he pushed me to
kiss. Put his hands in my pants. Kissed me on my middle spot. He told me don[’]t
tell anybody[,] so I want [sic] get in trouble[,] & he want [sic] get in trouble[,] too.
For his Bday[,] he did the same thing. [D]ug in my butt. Put private part in my butt,
that[’]s why it hurt.

4

his middle spot. J.N.M. said the Juvenile made her pants sag. She told
him to stop, but he did not listen. J.N.M. explained that the Juvenile
stuck out his middle spot like how boys pee. J.N.M. said for the
Juvenile to stop, but he kept going. This made J.N.M. sad, it did not feel
good. J.N.M. said that the Juvenile was no longer her friend. J.N.M.
next asserted that the Juvenile had used his hand to touch her private
part underneath her clothing. He put his hand in her pants while they
were outside. J.N.M. described this as happening when it was “his”
birthday, and J.P.M. went to get a Dr. Pepper, and they went to hide.
This felt “not good.” The Juvenile kept doing this, and neither of them
said anything. J.N.M. added that the Juvenile had caused her to touch
his hip and breasts with her hand when he picked her up to spin her
around. These activities occurred when they were in school and every
day when they were out of school. The Juvenile took J.N.M. to the back
yard to spin her.

During the interview, J.N.M. used drawings of a nude boy and a nude girl to

specifically identify the body parts to which she referred.

Detective Robertson set up a second interview for J.N.M. with the Child

Advocacy Center after being informed by L.B. that J.N.M. had, subsequent to the first

interview, disclosed to her events not previously mentioned. However, the only new

information provided to Ms. Simon by J.N.M. in that interview related to an

additional incident wherein the juvenile had kissed J.N.M. on the arm. Additionally,

J.N.M. did attempt to clarify the particulars of the incident wherein she claimed the

juvenile had anally raped her. In this interview, J.N.M. told Ms. Simon that the

sexual contact occurred underneath her clothing and not on the exterior of her

underwear. She further particularized the offensive contact short of sexual contact

by telling Ms. Simon that the juvenile had kissed her breasts, lips, arm, and braids.

She also repeated her claim that the juvenile had used his hand to touch her “middle

spot” and her “butt.”

Detective Robertson testified that when she interviewed J.D.B., the juvenile

denied all of the victim’s allegations. He told Detective Robertson that recently he

5

and J.N.M. had begun to have problems and were not getting along. He did

acknowledge that he may have touched the victim’s buttocks on one occasion during

a game of tackle football.

In opposition to the evidence presented by the state, the juvenile offered the

testimony of a number of witnesses from the neighborhood, all of whom could only

testify that they had not observed any of the incidents testified to by J.N.M. These

witnesses included J.W., the juvenile’s mother’s fiancee, who lived with the family;

M.A., who lived in the house between that of the victim and the juvenile; M.C., who

lived across the street from the victim and the juvenile; and C.D., the juvenile’s

mother. The general consensus of these witnesses was that everything in the

neighborhood appeared normal until around the time of the allegations. M.A. and

C.D. alluded to an incident involving M.A.’s seven-year-old grandson as the possible

cause of the animosity.

In rendering its judgment, the juvenile court gave the following reasons for

acquitting the juvenile of the aggravated rape and indecent behavior with juvenile

charges and for finding that he committed the offense of sexual battery:

Very difficult, very emotional, very sensitive, very unfortunate
that we’re here. I try to pay close attention to all of the testimony, all of
the evidence. I think that I’ve followed it well enough to make a
decision, and I realize that the law requires that the State prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt exists when the trier
of fact is not firmly convinced of the truth of the charge. As to the
aggravated rape, I find there’s reasonable doubt. There was testimony
from [the victim] that the clothes were on; they were off. At one point
she said that he - [the Juvenile] pulled her pants down but not the
underwear, so I’m just - I don’t see there’s penetration. There was [sic]
questions about on or in the butt; I just don’t think that penetration has
been established. And also aggravated rape could occur by way of oral
sex, [the Juvenile] touching her in her groin area with his mouth. There
was - But as best I could tell, [the victim] is saying that occurred in the
front yard while they were playing hide and seek. I think there’s
reasonable doubt as to that because I would agree with Ms. [W.], and I

6

know for certain that some people do things we don’t understand and
wouldn’t make sense to us, but for - when you look at the bushes in the
front yard, this is daytime in the front yard, those kids would be easily
seen from anyone from the street or anywhere else in the front yard
underneath those bushes as they existed in 2008. So, I don’t think - I
think there’s reasonable doubt as to that.

Sexual battery, I find there’s evidence to support an adjudication
of sexual battery. [The victim]’s testimony was just very strong. She
was consistent when she talked to her mom; she was consistent here in
court; she was consistent in the CAC tape. The details may be a little off
in some respects, but, again, she’s six years old, and I just don’t think
that she could come up with such an elaborate fabrication at that age and
at her current age. I realize that I don’t - there was no testimony from
any of the adults that put [the victim] and [the juvenile] together for any
appreciable amount of time, but, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
These are offenses that occur without witnesses most of the time. I
imagine there may be an instance or so where there is a witness, an
unknown witness, or someone may be in a position to witness something
where the offender didn’t know it, or didn’t care, I don’t know, but
generally speaking these - you don’t have witnesses to these types of
offenses. But I’m convinced that while her testimony may be somewhat
disjointed, but not really, I’m not going to say to the point where I can’t
believe her, but I do believe that there was some improper touching
about the breasts and around her buttocks.

Indecent behavior, I think - I’m gonna - I find that the sexual
battery, I think that did occur, but it’s by way of touching, and those
things also could reasonably conclude - a person could reasonably
conclude that they involved - that could be a basis for a conviction of
indecent behavior. But I think there’s a jeopardy issue here, there can’t
be both, it’s either one or the other, and I find sexual battery by way of
the touchings underneath the clothing, over - underneath and over,
whatever, it may have been either, are enough to support a conviction of
sexual battery, and that’s what I find.

J.D.B. perfected this appeal, asserting in his one assignment of error that the

evidence was insufficient to establish all of the elements of sexual battery beyond a

reasonable doubt.

OPINION

Louisiana Children’s Code Article 883 provides that “[i]n order for the court

to adjudicate a child delinquent, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

7

the child committed a delinquent act alleged in the petition.” That being the case, the

state’s burden of proof is the same as would be required in a criminal proceeding

against an adult. State ex rel. Tatom, 463 So.2d 35 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1985). Our

review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a delinquency adjudication is subject to

the due process standards set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct.

2781 (1979). State ex rel. L.T., 99-487 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 747 So.2d 148.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has discussed the due process standard for reviewing

the sufficiency of evidence under Jackson and, in doing so, has stated the following:

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence
claim is 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, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d
560 (1979). A determination of the weight of evidence is a question of
fact, resting solely with the trier of fact who may accept or reject, in
whole or in part, the testimony of any witnesses. A reviewing court may
impinge on the factfinding function of the jury only to the extent
necessary to assure the Jackson standard of review. It is not the function
of an appellate court to assess credibility or re-weigh the evidence.

State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La. 6/1/07), 957 So.2d 1280, 1285-86 (some
citations omitted).

With regard to the offense of sexual battery, La.R.S. 14:43.1(A) provides:

Sexual battery is the intentional engaging in any of the following
acts with another person where the offender acts without the consent of
the victim, or where the act is consensual but the other person, who is
not the spouse of the offender, has not yet attained fifteen years of age
and is at least three years younger than the offender:

(1) The touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the
offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the
offender; or

(2) 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.

8

Touching through clothing is sufficient to complete the touching element of sexual

battery. State v. Simpkins, 44,197 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/13/09), 12 So.3d 1021, writ

denied, 09-1229 (La. 2/5/10), 27 So.3d 296, and writ denied, 09-1539 (La. 3/5/10),

28 So.3d 1004.

J.D.B. argues that because the only evidence tending to establish aggravated

rape was provided by the victim and because the juvenile court concluded that the

evidence was insufficient on this charge, the juvenile court implicitly found J.N.M.’s

testimony to be inconsistent, self-contradictory, and unbelievable. That being the

case, he argues, the juvenile court erred in not finding the victim’s testimony

concerning the sexual battery charge to be equally unreliable.

We do not find that the juvenile court found J.N.M.’s testimony to be

unreliable. On the contrary, the juvenile court made the following statement with

respect to the victim’s reliability:

[J.N.M.]’s testimony was just very strong. She was consistent when she
talked to her mom; she was consistent here in court; she was consistent
in the CAC tape. The details may be a little off in some respects, but
again, she’s six years old, and I just don’t think that she could come up
with such an elaborate fabrication at that age and at her current age. I
realize that I don’t - there was no testimony from any of the adults that
put [J.N.M.] and [the Juvenile] together for any appreciable amount of
time, but, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. These are offenses that
occur without witnesses most of the time. I imagine there may be an
instance or so where there is a witness, an unknown witness, or someone
may be in a position to witness something where the offender didn’t
know it, or didn’t care, I don’t know, but generally speaking these - you
don’t have witnesses to these types of offenses. But I’m convinced that
while her testimony may be somewhat disjointed, but not really, I’m not
going to say to the point where I can’t believe her[.]

In other words, the juvenile court did not conclude that J.N.M. was unreliable, but

that the aggravated rape evidence lacked proof of an essential element of the

offense—penetration. Additionally, the juvenile court rejected the indecent behavior

9

charge, not because the facts were not present to establish the offense, but because

of double jeopardy concerns.

As noted in Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 (footnote omitted), the reviewing court

must review all the evidence presented at trial in order to determine the sufficiency

of the evidence:

This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of
fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence,
and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.
Once a defendant has been found guilty of the crime charged, the
factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a legal
conclusion that upon judicial review all the evidence is to be considered
in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

When the evidence in this matter is viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the

evidence establishes that the juvenile rubbed his bare genitals against the victim’s

anus, regardless of whether J.N.M.’s anus was covered by her underwear. It matters

not whether the act was consensual because J.N.M. was more than three years

younger than J.D.B. Thus, we find no error in the juvenile court’s conclusion that the

state had established the offense of sexual battery by proof beyond a reasonable

doubt. We find no merit in this assignment of error.

Pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 104, La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, and this court’s

holding in State ex rel. J.C.G., 97-1044 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/98), 706 So.2d 1081, we

review all delinquency appeals for errors patent. In this matter, we find one such

error that must be addressed.

The juvenile court failed to inform J.D.B. of the two-year prescriptive period

for filing post-conviction relief as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8. Although

the Louisiana Children’s Code contains no similar provision, this court has previously

held that this notice should be given. State ex rel. J.C.G., 706 So.2d 1081; State ex

10

rel. J. F., 03-321 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/6/03), 851 So.2d 1282. Thus, the matter must be

remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to advise J.D.B. of the provisions of

La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to him within ten

days of the rendition of this opinion and to file written proof that J.D.B. received the

notice. See State ex rel. J.C.G., 706 So.2d 1081.

DISPOSITION

We affirm J.D.B.’s adjudication of delinquency. We remand the matter with

instructions to the juvenile court to advise J.D.B. of the provisions of La.Code

Crim.P. art. 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to him within ten days of the

rendition of this opinion and to file written proof that J.D.B. received the notice.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform
Rules–Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

11