State of Louisiana v. Kevin James Dalcourt

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-1238

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

KEVIN JAMES DALCOURT

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR-122023
HONORABLE PATRICK L. MICHOT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

OSWALD A. DECUIR
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Jimmie C. Peters, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Alfred F. Boustany, II
Attorney At Law
P. O. Box 4626
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 261-0225
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Kevin James Dalcourt

Michele S. Billeaud
Assistant District Attorney
Fifteenth Judicial District Court
800 South Buchanan Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 262-1057
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

DECUIR, Judge.

Defendant was charged by bill of information with forcible rape, a

violation of La.R.S. 14:42.1. A jury found Defendant guilty, and he was

sentenced to ten years at hard labor, with the first five years to be served

without the benefit of probation, suspension of sentence, or parole, and with

credit for time served.

Defendant appealed, alleging eight assignments of error.

FACTS

On the evening of October 11, 2008, Defendant had anal intercourse with

L.R., a mentally challenged fifteen-year-old girl, without her consent, using

intimidation and force.1

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER SEVEN

In his seventh assignment of error, Defendant argues that the verdict was

contrary to the law and evidence. Defendant also argues the bill of information

was defective in that it did not allege essential facts on which the charge was

based and, therefore, inhibited his ability to adequately prepare a defense. By

these assignments, Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction.

The time for testing the sufficiency of the bill of information was prior to

trial by a motion to quash or by a motion for a bill of particulars. State v.

Draughn, 05-1825 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1012,

128 S.Ct. 537 (2007). An omission of an essential fact in an indictment does

not necessarily create a prejudicial error because such facts can be supplied

during discovery. State v. Johnson, 02-254 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/26/02), 822 So.2d

1
The initials of the victim and her family are used to protect her identity. La.R.S.
46:1844(W).

840. The record shows that Defendant never filed a motion to quash the bill of

information for an alleged defect. Moreover, the record indicates that several

months prior to trial, Defendant received discovery from the State regarding the

manner in which Defendant was alleged to have committed the act of forcible

rape.

Defendant also argues the evidence did not establish the essential

element of force, that the victim ―never testified that she reasonably believed

that resistance would not prevent a rape.‖

The standard of review in sufficiency of the evidence claims is well

settled. An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable

for the prosecution and not disturb the ruling of the trial court unless no rational

trier of fact could reach the trial court‘s conclusion. State v. Macon, 06-481

(La. 6/1/07), 957 So.2d 1280.

In State v. Schexnaider, 03-144, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/03), 852 So.2d

450, 457, this court set forth the elements required by La.R.S. 14:42.1 that the

State must prove to support a conviction of forcible rape:

[I]n order to convict the Defendant, the State had the burden of
proving: (1) an act of vaginal or anal intercourse; (2) without the
lawful consent of the victim; and (3) where the victim is prevented
from resisting the act by force or threats of physical violence under
circumstances where the victim reasonably believes that such
resistance would not prevent the rape.

In the present case, the victim suffered from a mental cognitive disability.

On October 11, 2008, Defendant and an employee, Ms. Nat, picked up the

victim, L.R., her brother, I.F., and their sister, A.F., from their home and took

them to Defendant‘s restaurant. I.F. was thirteen years old at the time and A.F.

was twelve. The children regularly went to the restaurant to eat and helped out

around the restaurant after school and during the summer time. In addition, the

2

victim helped sell snowballs from a snowball stand and beauty salon owned by

Defendant‘s wife. Later in the evening, I.F. and A.F. began playing on two

laptop computers in the restaurant. The victim asked Defendant if she could

play on the computer in his office, which was located in the back room of the

beauty salon.

Shortly after she began playing on the computer, the victim testified that

Defendant came and stood beside her and asked for a hug. She said she was

frightened by the request and told him no. Defendant left the office but quickly

returned and sat on a sofa in the office. He asked her again for a hug. Again,

she told him no. The third time he asked, however, she went over to him and

hugged him. She stated that he then pulled down her pants. She said that she

did not say anything to him because she was scared. He got up and went into

the salon area, locked the front door, and got a clear bottle containing a lotion or

oil. The victim stated that when he left, she pulled up her pants, but when he

returned, he again pulled them down. She pulled her pants back up and started

to walk out of the office but he turned her around and made her walk back to

the sofa. She stated that he bent her over the sofa, pulled down her pants, oiled

his ―private part,‖ and put his penis into her rectum. She stated that during this

time, he also put his finger into her vagina. The victim testified that she did not

resist or tell Defendant no because she was scared and did not think she could

get away because he was physically on her. The victim testified that she was

crying during the encounter.

During this time, there was a knock at the salon door, which was ignored

by Defendant. The victim testified she did not yell out because she did not

think she would have been heard. However, shortly thereafter came another

knock at the door and Defendant stopped, pulled up his pants, and opened the
3

door. It was the victim‘s brother. The victim testified that she pulled up her

pants and went back to the computer. Then, with her brother, she went back to

the restaurant. There, they finished cleaning up. She stated Defendant told her

―Do you know what we just did grown-ups do[?]‖ and asked her if they could

do it again. She told him, ―No.‖ He then gave her money.

In State v. Polizzi, 05-478 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/06), 924 So.2d 303, writ

denied, 06-1052 (La. 11/3/06), 940 So.2d 660, writ denied, 08-06 (La. 1/30/09),

999 So.2d 751, the fifth circuit found the element of force was present even

though the fourteen year old victim did not actively resist the rape. While

discussing whether there was sufficient evidence of force, the fifth circuit

stated:

In a similar case, State v. Wright, 598 So.2d 561, 565,
(La.App. 4th Cir.1992), writ denied, 93-2502 (La. 3/22/96), 669
So.2d 1227; writ denied, 98-1474 (La. 10/16/98), 726 So.2d 410,
our brethren on the Fourth Circuit affirmed the forcible rape
conviction where the evidence showed the 13-year-old victim was
prevented by force or threats from resisting sexual intercourse
based on the victim‘s testimony that she considered the defendant
to be an adult and not a playmate, that she was told by defendant to
accompany him to another room, that the defendant touched and
kissed her all over, that he attempted to raise her clothes, that he
climbed on top of her and held her arms over her head. The victim
also testified that the defendant told her to stop moving, that she
was angering him when she attempted to push him away, and that
she was too scared to fight the defendant.

The Wright court cited a case by this Court in support of its
conclusion, State v. Hawkins, 504 So.2d 1132, 1133 (La.App. 5th
Cir. 1987). In Hawkins, the defendant was convicted of forcible
rape, primarily on the testimony of his 13-year-old victim. The
victim testified that the defendant forced him to go inside of the
defendant‘s apartment where, the defendant locked the door,
undressed the youth, and sodomized him. Trial testimony revealed
that the victim was afraid, tried to escape, but couldn‘t move
because the defendant was on top of him. He also testified that he
did not encourage the defendant or consent to the act.

In State v. Wright, supra, the court pointed out that the
evidence regarding the element of force and the subjective state of
mind of the victim, as in Hawkins, when viewed together with all
4

of the other evidence, was sufficient to support the defendants‘
convictions of forcible rape. Id. at 565.

In the instant case, the Defendant, whom A.R. referred to as
her neighbor‘s paw-paw, used his position of authority and his size
to accomplish sexual intercourse with her. A.R. knew the
Defendant carried a knife on his person and in fact, a knife
disguised as a belt buckle was found on him during booking. A.R.
repeatedly said that she was afraid of the Defendant. Further, her
statement to Detective Beyerback indicates that she repeatedly told
the Defendant to stop, to no avail. Viewed in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, we find that the State proved the
essential elements of forcible rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
This assignment of error lacks merit.

Id. at 312-13(footnote omitted).

In the current case, Defendant argues in brief that the victim ―testified

only that the Defendant pulled down her pants. She did not testify that he

forced her pants down or that he used any force whatsoever.‖ The victim,

however, twice told him no when he asked her for a hug. She testified that she

pulled her pants back up three times in order to prevent him from completing

his intent. Moreover, when she tried to leave the office, he turned her around

and walked her back to the sofa. While the victim testified she never said no to

him, it was apparent from her actions that she was not at all complicit. Further,

he was an adult, a caregiver, and an employer. With regards to the element of

force, the reasonable belief of the victim that resistance is futile must be viewed

subjectively from the victim‘s perspective. See State v. Wright, 598 So.2d 561

(La.App. 4 Cir. 1992), writ denied, 93-2502 (La. 3/22/96), 669 So.2d 1227, and

writ denied, 98-1474 (La. 10/16/98), 726 So.2d 410.

As in Wright, discussed above, the victim felt compelled to not cry out as

the sexual abuse occurred. She testified that she and her brother and sister spent

a lot of time at Defendant‘s restaurant. She stated that she had liked being at

5

the restaurant and liked Defendant, and that when she was in the restaurant, he

was in charge and she listened to him.

Christa Billeaud, a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), with the

Hearts of Hope Assault Nurse program, was qualified as an expert sexual

assault examiner. She examined the victim the next night after the assault. She

testified that her examination revealed injuries in the form of lacerations to the

anus and into the anal canal consistent with injuries caused by forced anal

penetration.

The evidence regarding the element of force and the subjective state of

mind of the victim, when viewed together with all of the evidence, was

sufficient to support the conviction for forcible rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

Defendant asserts the trial court erred when it questioned some of the

prospective jurors during voir dire out of the presence of Defendant. Defendant

cites La.Code Crim.P. art. 831(3) which provides that a defendant shall be

present ―[a]t the calling, examination, challenging, impaneling, and swearing of

the jury, and at any subsequent proceedings for the discharge of the jury or of a

juror.‖ He argues that there is nothing in the statute which allows an attorney to

waive his client‘s presence. However, in State v. Broaden, 99-2124, (La.

2/21/01), 780 So.2d 349, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 884, 122 S.Ct. 192 (2001), the

supreme court found that while a defendant has a right to be present, it may be

waived and a contemporaneous objection may be required.

Five prospective jurors were questioned about personal private issues

outside Defendant‘s presence. A sixth prospective juror was questioned outside

of both defense counsel‘s and the State‘s presence in the judge‘s chambers.

6

However, prior to these sessions, the trial court specifically addressed the issue

of Defendant‘s presence, and defense counsel waived his presence.

After meeting with the prospective jurors, the trial court advised trial

counsel and the State of the juror‘s issues and without objection one was

excused by the trial court. Of the other five prospective jurors, three were

challenged for cause without objection and excused. Defendant was present

and consulted with his attorney during the challenge conference.

There is no merit to this assignment of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

Defendant asserts the trial court erred when it permitted a police officer

to testify that Defendant asserted his right to remain silent after he was arrested

and argues that defense counsel erred when he did not object to the question.

At trial, Detective Stephen Bajat commenced his testimony with a summary of

the investigation into the allegation of forcible rape made against Defendant:

Q. And did you have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Dalcourt?

A. He refused to provide a statement.

The fifth circuit recently discussed a defendant‘s post-arrest right to

remain silent in State v. Pierce, 11-320, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/29/11), 80

So.3d 1267, 1272-73 as follows:

It is well settled that a prosecutor cannot make reference to
the fact an accused exercised his constitutional right to remain
silent, after he had been advised of the right, solely to ascribe a
guilty meaning to his silence or to undermine, by inference, an
exculpatory version related by the accused, for the first time at
trial. State v. Olivieri, 03-563 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d
207, 213. But, the State may pursue a line of questioning that
attempts to summarize the extent of the investigation, when such
questions are not designed to exploit the defendant‘s failure to
claim his innocence after his arrest in an effort to impeach his
testimony or attack his defense. Id. An oblique and obscure
reference to a defendant‘s post-arrest silence, where the
examination does not stress the right to remain silent or attempt to
7

elicit testimony regarding the defendant‘s failure to respond to
police questioning does not constitute reversible error. State v.
Robinson, 04-964 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/05), 896 So.2d 1115, 1126.

Under La.C.Cr.P. art. 771, when the prosecutor or a witness
makes a reference to a defendant‘s post-arrest silence, the trial
court is required, upon the request of the defendant or the State, to
promptly admonish the jury. In such cases where the trial court is
satisfied that an admonition is not sufficient to assure the defendant
a fair trial, the court may grant a mistrial upon motion of the
defendant. State v. Robinson, 896 So.2d at 1126, citing State v.
Kersey, 406 So.2d 555, 559 (La.1981). A brief reference to a
defendant‘s post-arrest silence does not mandate a mistrial or
reversal when the trial as a whole was fairly conducted, the proof
of guilt is strong, and the prosecution made no use of the silence
for impeachment purposes. Id.

In the current case, Defendant did not object to the statement;

accordingly, the issue is not subject to an appeal. Louisiana criminal procedure

requires a contemporaneous objection in such cases, unless the error was so

fundamental as to deprive a defendant of a fair trial. La.Code Crim.P. art. 841,

State v. Arvie, 505 So.2d 44 (La.1987).

Defendant argues that trial counsel‘s failure to object ―represents

ineffective assistance of counsel on its face. Because this case rested largely on

the believability of the alleged victim, the State cannot show beyond a

reasonable doubt that this error was harmless.‖ However, we note that any

objection at that point would have made an issue of the fact, and trial counsel

may well have decided not to object for that reason. Since this may be an issue

of trial strategy, review should be handled through post-conviction relief,

wherein an evidentiary hearing may be held to determine whether trial

counsel‘s actions constituted ineffective assistance. La.Code Crim.P. art. 930,

State v. Rios, 44,132 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/8/09), 7 So.3d 832.

8

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS NUMBERS THREE AND FOUR

In these two assignments of error, Defendant asserts that the trial court

erred when it denied his motions to continue the sentencing hearing and for a

new trial. Defendant was convicted on December 3, 2010. A date for

sentencing was not set until the trial court received the presentence

investigation report. Defendant filed a pro-se ―Petition for Trial Transcripts,‖

wherein he alleged he could no longer afford retained counsel and that he

needed the transcripts for the purpose of an appeal. The petition was denied.

Later, Defendant‘s trial and appellate counsel filed motions to continue

sentencing pending receipt of transcripts on a motion for new trial. Appellate

counsel argued that a trial transcript was necessary because ―the defendant‘s

undersigned counsel did not participate in the trial. However, after he spoke to

the Defendant, he realized that the Defendant did not have an opportunity to

present his defense and believes the Defendant has good grounds for a new

trial.‖ This latter motion was extensive and detailed as to what injustices

allegedly occurred in Defendant‘s case at trial. Both trial counsel and appellate

counsel argued that the continuance was necessary. The State argued that

Defendant had two and one-half months to prepare for the new trial hearing and

objected to a continuance of the sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the

motions to continue and ordered appellate counsel to proceed on the motion for

new trial.

Defendant argues in brief that the trial court erred when it refused to

continue the sentencing date. He points to La.Code Crim.P. art. 853, which, in

pertinent part, provides:

A motion for a new trial must be filed and disposed of
before sentence. The court, on motion of the defendant and for
good cause shown, may postpone the imposition of sentence for a
9

specified period in order to give the defendant additional time to
prepare and file a motion for a new trial.

The trial court has discretion in granting a continuance. La.Code Crim.P. art.

712. ―The denial of a motion for continuance is not grounds for reversal absent

abuse of discretion and a showing of specific prejudice.‖ State v. Bartley, 03-

1382, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/30/04), 871 So.2d 563, 567, writ denied, 04-1055

(La. 10/1/04), 883 So.2d 1006.

Appellate counsel argued that he needed the continuance in order to

receive the trial transcript so that he could prepare the motion for new trial. At

trial, the victim‘s mother testified that after the victim told her about the rape,

her ex-boyfriend, John Sampy, called 911 first, then called Defendant and told

him they were on their way to the hospital with the victim and ―he wanted to let

him know that the authorities were going to be contacting him shortly.‖ The

gist of the motion for new trial was that Sampy convinced the victim to say

Defendant raped her in order to extort money, and that Defendant told counsel

of this prior to trial, and counsel did not pursue the issue.

At the hearing, appellate counsel told the trial court that he had initially

enrolled to handle Defendant‘s appeal, but he realized that Defendant had been

deprived of a defense because trial counsel erroneously told him the

information regarding the extortion attempt was inadmissible evidence.

Therefore, trial counsel had a conflict with bringing a motion for new trial

based on that information himself, and appellate counsel had to then pursue the

new trial motion.

The issue raised by appellate counsel raises ineffective assistance of

counsel. As observed in the previous assignment, there may be issues of trial

10

strategy. Appellate counsel‘s allegations are more appropriate for the post-

conviction relief process.

The trial court did not abuse its considerable discretion when it denied

Defendant‘s motion to continue the sentencing hearing. Moreover, the

allegations about involvement did not constitute grounds for a new trial as they

were not ―new evidence,‖ since Defendant alleged that he told trial counsel

about Sampy before trial. Therefore, we also find there was no error in the trial

court‘s denial of the motion for new trial, and Defendant has failed to show

prejudice because of the denial. The trial court is vested with almost unlimited

discretion to grant or deny a motion for new trial to serve the ends of justice,

and its decision should not be interfered with unless there has been a palpable

abuse of that discretion. State v. Guillory, 10-1231 (La. 10/8/10), 45 So.3d 612.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FIVE

Defendant asserts that the ―State had exculpatory evidence and knew or

should have known of its existence but failed to disclose that evidence before

trial.‖ The exculpatory evidence Defendant argues the State failed to disclose

is:

1) The name and the location of the mother‘s ex-boyfriend, John Sampy,

who Defendant alleges tried to extort money to ―take care‖ of the rape claim

made by the victim.

2) School records of the victim requested by the trial court prior to

sentencing which indicated that the victim was susceptible to manipulation.

3) The police statement of the victim‘s brother, I.F., which was written

by John Sampy for I.F.

11

The Defendant also contends the State failed to notify him that the sexual

assault nurse who examined the victim would testify as an expert witness and

not as a fact witness and that she was paid by the State to do so.

Mother’s ex-boyfriend, John Sampy:

During Defendant‘s motion to continue/new trial hearing, trial counsel

testified that despite repeated requests for the name and location of the mother‘s

ex-boyfriend who allegedly attempted to extort money from Defendant, the first

time he learned his name was at trial. However, as noted by the State, the

record before this court is ―void of any request wherein the Defendant advised

the State that he wanted to know the name of the victim‘s mother‘s ex-

boyfriend.‖

Victim’s school records:

After conviction, the trial court asked the State to obtain the victim‘s

school record. Defendant was informed of the record during the motion to

continue/new trial hearing. After trial counsel had the opportunity to review the

record, he noted that the record indicated the victim was ―weak in the area of

manipulation.‖ In brief to this court, Defendant argues that ―[t]his evidence

was not available to the appellant before the trial, and even the prosecutor said

she learned of that evidence only on the sentencing date.‖

The State, however, argued that it did not have these records prior to or

during trial and only obtained them upon request of the trial court after the

conviction. The State noted that Defendant could have subpoenaed the victim‘s

school records at any time prior to trial himself.

Statement written by Mr. Sampy for I.F.:

Defendant asserts that he ―learned for the first time during the testimony

of [I.F.] that ‗the moma‘s boyfriend‘s name was John Sampy,‘ and the
12

boyfriend had written the statement for that witness.‖ At trial, trial counsel

asked I.F. if he knew a man named John Sampy and I.F. testified that Sampy

was his mother‘s ex-boyfriend. When asked by trial counsel what statements he

had read to get ready for trial, I.F. stated that he ―read the one that I.F. told Mr.

Sampy, he wrote it down.‖

At the continuance/new trial hearing, trial counsel testified that had he

known the ex-boyfriend had written the statement for the witness, he ―would

have issued a subpoena for him to attend the trial and he would have run a

background check on the boyfriend.‖ Again, trial counsel asserted the State

failed to give him exculpatory evidence, although, at the hearing, the State

pointed out that it had supplied the witness‘s statement attached to the police

reports pursuant to a discovery request. Trial counsel agreed he received the

discovery.

Sexual assault nurse as expert witness:

Defendant argues that the State failed to disclose inculpatory expert

opinion. As noted by the State, at the time of the SANE nurse‘s examination by

the State, Defendant made no objection to Ms. Billeaud being qualified as an

expert in sexual assault cases. In fact, after extensively traversing the witness,

Defendant specifically accepted her as an expert witness in the field of sexual

assault nursing. Furthermore, Defendant fails to establish how the fact that she

was going to testify as an expert, if disclosed to the defense, would have

changed the outcome of the proceeding or created a reasonable doubt that did

not otherwise exist.

In State v. Harper, 10-356, pp. 10-12 (La. 11/30/10), 53 So.3d 1263,

1270-71, the supreme court reaffirmed the legal standards relative to the State‘s

discovery obligations, in pertinent part, as follows:
13

A defendant‘s request for such material must be specific and
relevant. State v. Davenport, 399 So.2d 201, 202-03 (La.1981).
Where a specific request is made and ―the subject matter of such a
request is material, or indeed if a substantial basis for claiming
materiality exists, it is reasonable to require the prosecutor to
respond either by furnishing the information or by submitting the
problem to the trial judge.‖ Agurs, 427 U.S. at 106, 96 S.Ct. at
2399; [State v.] Ates, 418 So.2d [1326] at 1328 [(1982)]. To
determine the nature of the requested material, the trial court may
conduct an in camera inspection. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 718;
[State v.] Cobb, 419 So.2d [1237] at 1241[(La.1982)]; Ates, 418
So.2d at 1328-29. A defendant will nevertheless be denied such an
inspection where the State has denied possession of the specific
information requested and the defendant has made no contrary
showing. Cobb, 419 So.2d at 1241; Davenport, 399 So.2d at 203.

....

Nevertheless, the State‘s constitutional obligation to disclose
exculpatory evidence does not relieve the defense of its obligation
to conduct its own investigation and prepare a defense for trial as
the State is not obligated under Brady or its progeny to furnish
defendant with information he already has or can obtain with
reasonable diligence. State v. Kenner, 05-1052, p. 2 (La.12/16/05),
917 So.2d 1081, 1081 (citing United States v. Newman, 849 F.2d
156, 161 (5th Cir.1988)); see also, Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S.
344, 348, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990) (―The
essence of [defendant‘s] right [to assistance of counsel for his
defense] ... is the opportunity for a defendant to consult with an
attorney and to have him investigate the case and prepare a defense
for trial.‖). It follows, therefore, ― ‗[t]here is no Brady violation
where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts
permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information,
or where the evidence is available from another source, because in
such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.‘‖
State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), 752 So.2d 771,
786 (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 839, 121 S.Ct. 102, 148 L.Ed.2d 61 (2000). As
the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has noted:

Regardless of whether the request was specific or
general, and regardless of whether the evidence was
material or even exculpatory, when information is
fully available to a defendant at the time of trial and
his only reason for not obtaining and presenting the
evidence to the Court is his lack of reasonable
diligence, the defendant has no Brady claim.

The constitutional requirement of due process
mandates that the defendant have a right to a fair trial.
The prosecutor‘s duty not to suppress material
14

information favorable to defendant flows from his
office as representative of the Government‘s interest
in and due process obligation to justice. Truth,
justice, and the American way do not, however,
require the Government to discover and develop the
defendant‘s entire defense.... In no way can
information known and available to the defendant be
said to have been suppressed by the Government.

United States v. Brown, 628 F.2d 471, 473 (5th Cir.1980) (citations
omitted).

In the current case, the name of the man who was the victim‘s mother‘s

ex-boyfriend, the man who allegedly attempted to extort from Defendant, was

available to Defendant upon due diligence. There is nothing in the discovery

record before this court to indicate defense counsel ever made the effort to get

this information from the State or from any of the other witnesses. He failed to

ask the victim‘s mother when he had the opportunity to do so prior to trial. As

noted during Defendant‘s continuance/new trial hearing, the State repeatedly

offered open file discovery but he declined to avail himself for the reason:

I generally do not do open file discovery because it ends up in a
he-said/she-said argument, or potential for a he-said/she-said
argument between defense counsel and the State‘s attorney.

However, trial counsel admitted he was aware that whenever he chose, he had

open file discovery available.

We find it curious that while appellate counsel argues that the State‘s

failure to disclose exculpatory information regarding the victim‘s mother‘s ex-

boyfriend was damaging to Defendant‘s defense, Defendant never revealed the

extortion attempt to the police in the first place. At the continuance/new trial

hearing, when asked why, trial counsel answered, ―He had been arrested for

forcible rape and you expect me to give him advice to go and talk to the police

about an extortion?‖ Had Defendant done so, the necessity of seeking

information about Mr. Sampy would have been brought to the forefront.
15

Finally, even though the State did not have the victim‘s school records

until after the conviction and, thus, could not have disclosed them, Defendant

made no effort to subpoena records himself. Considering that the victim had

accused Defendant of forcible rape and there were no witnesses to the act, her

credibility was at issue. It might have been prudent to have had more

information regarding the victim.

For all of the above reasons, there is no merit to this assignment of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER SIX

Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it did not permit the jury

to have a copy of the transcription of the victim‘s statement to the police.

Defendant argues that the transcript shows how her statement was manipulated

by the interviewing officer, Detective Stephen Bajat, an investigator with the

Lafayette Police Department. During deliberations, the jury requested a copy of

the transcript. The trial court denied the request pursuant to La.Code Crim.P.

art. 793.

―The general rule as expressed by La.C.Cr.P. art. 793 is that the jury is

not to inspect written evidence except for the sole purpose of a physical

examination of the document itself to determine an issue which does not require

the examination of the verbal contents of the document.‖ State v. Ray, 577

So.2d 354, 357 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 580 So.2d 668 (La.1991), citing

State v. Perkins, 423 So.2d 1103, 1109 (La.1982) and State v. Rodriguez, 476

So.2d 503, 508 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1985).

Defendant asserts that the jury sought the document because, during

closing argument, trial counsel told them they should ask to see that transcript

so they can see how the police officer was not being objective or open-minded

or trying to find facts when he questioned the alleged victim. Rather, he was
16

asking leading questions that suggested the correct answers in order to clarify

inconsistencies in her statements.

At trial, defense counsel extensively crossed-examined the detective

regarding his interview with the victim. The jury was well informed of the

questions the detective asked and how the victim answered. In State v.

Tammetta, 624 So.2d 433 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993), referring to La.Code Crim.P.

art. 793, the fifth circuit could not say it was harmless error when four sexual

abuse victims‘ written statements were given to the jury during deliberations.

For this reason, among others, the fifth circuit reversed the defendant‘s

convictions. In the current case, Defendant argues the jury required a copy of

the transcript to examine the detective‘s interrogation techniques. However, to

have allowed the transcript to be re-read could have led to reversible error. The

trial court did not err when it denied the request.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER EIGHT

Defendant‘s final argument is that the trial court erred when it held the

sentencing hearing immediately after it denied his motion for a new trial rather

than waiting three days as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 873. In this case,

any error would be harmless since Defendant does not argue excessiveness of

his sentence on appeal and does not show he was prejudiced by the lack of

delay. State v. Roberson, 06-1568 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/07), 956 So.2d 736, writ

denied, 07-1243 (La. 12/14/07), 970 So.2d 531. See also State v. Shepherd, 02-

1006 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03), 839 So.2d 1103.

DECREE

Defendant‘s conviction for forcible rape is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

17

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

18