State of Louisiana v. Freddie Navarre

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-920

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

FREDDIE NAVARRE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR 146230
HONORABLE PATRICK L. MICHOT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and
John E. Conery, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Keith A. Stutes
Lafayette Parish District Attorney
Michele S. Billeaud
Lafayette Parish Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70502-3306
Telephone: (337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - State of Louisiana

Carey J. Ellis, III
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 719
Rayville, LA 71269
Telephone: (318) 728-2043
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - Freddie Navarre

Freddie Navarre
St. Martin Sheriff’s Office
P. O. Box 188
St. Martinville, LA 70582
Defendant/Appellaant

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

Defendant Freddie Navarre appeals his conviction by a jury of

aggravated rape of a juvenile under the age of thirteen. He alleges that the

evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of aggravated rape.

For the following reasons, we affirm.

ISSUE

We shall consider whether the evidence was insufficient to prove

aggravated rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that the State failed to prove

all the elements of aggravated rape. He argues the only evidence of the rape was

the victim’s testimony, which contained inconsistencies and irreconcilable

conflicts with physical evidence; therefore, the evidence was not sufficient to

sustain the verdict of aggravated rape.

When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised
on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court 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, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979);
State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559
(La.1983); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982);
State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). It is the role
of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibilities of
the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should
not second guess the credibility determinations of the
trier of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the
Jackson standard of review. See Graffagnino, 436 So.2d
at 563, citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228
(La.1983). To obtain a conviction, the elements of the
crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Freeman, 01-997, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/01), 801 So.2d 578, 580.

Rape is defined as “the act of anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse

with a male or female person committed without the person’s lawful consent.”

La.R.S. 14:41(A). Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:42(A)(4), 1 in pertinent part,

states:

Aggravated 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 was
committed under any one or more of the following
circumstances:

....

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

Furthermore, it is well-settled jurisprudence that the testimony of a

single witness is sufficient to support a conviction, absent internal contradictions or

irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence, even where the State does not

introduce medical, scientific, or physical evidence. State v. Williams, 14-882

(La.App. 5 Cir. 5/14/15), 170 So.3d 1129. The credibility of the witness is a

matter of weight, and not sufficiency, of the evidence, and the determination of

credibility is left to the trier-of-fact’s sound discretion and will not be re-weighed

on appeal. State v. Dixon, 04-1019 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/15/05), 900 So.2d 929; State

v. Hawkins, 99-217 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/2/99), 740 So.2d 768.

1
All references to La.R.S. 14:42 are to the statute as it appeared in 2014, prior to its
amendment by Acts 2015, Nos. 184 & 256.

2

The victim, C.M.,2 who was sixteen at the time of trial, testified that

between the sixth and eighth grades he attended St. Genevieve School. He lived

with his father but visited his mother every other weekend. C.M. met Defendant

through his mother, and initially it was a good relationship. Defendant would give

him money and drive him to and pick him up from Skate Zone. However, one

afternoon, C.M. and his mother visited Defendant in his trailer. C.M. became

“excited” after watching pornography on Defendant’s computer. He stated that

Defendant noticed, took him into the back bedroom of the trailer, and performed

oral sex on him. This was when C.M. was around ten years old. When C.M.

complained, Defendant told him it was okay but not to tell anyone.

C.M. stated there were several more incidents of oral sexual contact

between him and Defendant. Another act occurred when another man was in the

trailer. C.M. said that Defendant attempted to anally penetrate him but it hurt too

much, and C.M. made Defendant stop. C.M. described how Defendant attempted

to penetrate him from different positions. C.M. also described one incident where

Defendant asked C.M. to anally penetrate him. Defendant also took pictures of

C.M. masturbating. C.M. stated that the sexual abuse stopped during the seventh

or eighth grade, around his thirteenth birthday. C.M. said he told Defendant to

stop, and Defendant did but warned him not to tell anyone.

C.M. testified he saw Defendant only once after the sexual activity

stopped. C.M. told two of his friends of the sexual misconduct. C.M. said that he

later told his father and stepmother about Defendant’s sexual advances and abuse.

2
The victim’s initials are used to protect his identity. La.R.S. 46:1844(W).

3

On cross-examination, C.M. admitted that he lies on occasions, but he

stated he would never lie just to get someone into trouble. He also said he had no

grudge against Defendant.

Defendant was fifty-six years old at the time of trial. He testified that

he had lived in Lafayette all his life. He never graduated from high school or

obtained a GED certificate. He admitted he had a criminal history for car theft,

simple burglary, and drug offenses. He stated that the victim’s mother and his

niece were close friends. He said that he gave C.M. money because his mother had

no money. He believed C.M. made up the allegations so that he would not have to

visit his mother anymore. Defendant claimed that C.M. only spent two nights at

his place and that both times, C.M. brought a friend with him. He said he and

C.M. were initially close friends, almost like family. While Defendant admitted he

had had sexual relationships with other males, they were always over the age of

eighteen. He denied ever touching C.M. inappropriately or having any kind of

sexual interaction with him.

In brief, Defendant argues that there were internal contradictions or

irreconcilable conflicts in C.M.’s testimony and that the details of the offenses

were vague. Defendant points out that the victim was unable to give dates for the

occurrences. Moreover, Defendant notes that the victim testified the first

encounter occurred with his mother “asleep in the front of the Winnebago. This is

where the computer was located. How could this have happened with C[.]M[.]’s

mother so close?” Defendant notes that in C.M.’s father’s affidavit prepared for

the police, he stated that “C[.]M[.] told him that the Defendant had sodomized him

five or six times, not two times as C[.]M[.] testified.” Defendant argues that

everyone—C.M.’s mother, his mother’s boyfriend, and C.M.’s father—all testified

4

that C.M. was a liar. Additionally, Defendant points out that the details C.M. gave

at trial were more extensive then the details he told to the child advocacy center.

Finally, Defendant argues:

An important fact to note is that the indictment states that
Mr. Navarre committed this crime between the dates of
September 9, 2009 and September 9, 2011. (Rec. p. 10).
The Defendant was in jail from August 3, 2011, until
February 2, 2012. . . . It would have been impossible for
the Defendant to have committed any act after August 3,
2011, contrary to the indictment and the allegations of
CM.

As noted above, the credibility of a witness goes to the weight of the

evidence. The jury observed and heard C.M. testify as to what happened to him.

While C.M.’s parents testified that C.M. was known to lie to them on occasions,

they both stated that he would lie to get himself out of trouble but never lied solely

to get someone into trouble.

Casie Barfield, a detective with the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office,

was the lead detective in this case. Detective Barfield worked in the juvenile

section and had extensive training in the physical and sexual abuse of children.

The detective scheduled and observed an interview with the children’s advocacy

center for C.M. The detective testified that C.M.’s trial testimony was consistent

with what he told the police and the children’s advocacy interviewer. The

detective noted it was not unusual for victims of sexual abuse to supply more

details at trial, nor was it unusual for victims to wait for a few years before

speaking out about the abuse. Finally, the detective stated that in these situations

parents of sexual abuse victims often get the facts confused. The detective had no

reason to believe that C.M. was not telling the truth.

5

While Defendant testified at trial that he thought C.M. made up the

allegation of sexual abuse so he would not have to spend weekends with his

mother, testimony established that both parents were all along well aware that

C.M. did not like to go to his mother’s because of her drug use and the fights she

and her boyfriend would get into in front of him. There was no testimony that

Defendant lived with C.M.’s mother and her boyfriend or that they hung around

together all the time. C.M.’s mother testified he would visit with Defendant, and

Defendant would help them out occasionally, but there was no testimony that C.M.

was made to go over to Defendant’s residence. There was no testimony given that

established if Defendant was not available to visit, C.M. would not have to visit his

mother.

The State proved all of the elements of aggravated rape beyond a

reasonable doubt. The sexual acts commenced when the victim was ten or eleven

years old. Defendant had oral and anal sex with the victim. Based on C.M.’s

account, the indictment alleged that the acts were committed between September 9,

2009, two days before the victim’s tenth birthday, and September 9, 2011, two

days before the victim’s thirteenth birthday. It is of no import that Defendant was

in jail in August 2011. The indictment did not allege all of the offenses occurred in

August 2011. According to C.M.’s testimony, the first act of rape occurred when

he was ten or eleven. Defendant has failed to show internal contradictions or

irreconcilable conflicts between C.M.’s testimony and the physical evidence in this

case. C.M.’s testimony was sufficient to establish the elements of the offense.

6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape

and his sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without probation or parole are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

7