State of Louisiana v. L.C. Chaney

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

21-477

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

L.C. CHANEY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 94460-AM-2
HONORABLE SCOTT WESTERCHIL, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Chief Judge, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D.
Kent Savoie, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Honorable Terry Wayne Lambright
District Attorney
William R. Thornton
Assistant District Attorney
Thirtieth Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 1188
Leesville, Louisiana 71446
(337) 239-2008
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Jane L. Beebe
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 463
Addis, Louisiana 70710-0463
(504) 263-8081
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
L.C. Chaney

SAVOIE, Judge.

In 2019, the State filed a bill of information charging Defendant L.C.

Chaney with molestation of a juvenile, in violation of La.R.S. 14:81.2. The State

filed amended bills on March 9, 2020, and again on May 4, 2021. The amended

bills also charged Defendant pursuant to La.R.S. 14:81.2. The parties began

selecting a jury on May 10, 2021, and completed selection the next day. The jury

heard evidence on May 12-13, 2021. The jury found Defendant guilty as charged.

The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for new trial on June 15, 2021; on

the same date, it sentenced him to twenty-five years at hard labor. Defendant now

appeals, assigning two errors. For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant’s

conviction and sentence.

FACTS

Victim A.B. is a resident of Vernon Parish.1 During a church mission trip to

Alabama in June 2019, the attendees shared life experiences in group discussions.

During one of these sessions, A.B. told other attendees that she had been sexually

abused. An adult supervisor, who was also one of A.B.’s teachers, questioned the

girl after the session and learned that the abuse had not been reported to law

enforcement. Upon the group’s return to Louisiana, the teacher reported the matter

to the Vernon Parish Sheriff’s Office. In the subsequent investigation, detectives

spoke to both the victim and Defendant, who is her step-great-grandfather. After

multiple denials, he ultimately confessed to inserting his finger into A.B.’s vagina.

At the time of the trial, the victim was eighteen years old. She testified that

when she was approximately ten years old, she lived in Anacoco with her

grandparents. During this time, she would go to Defendant’s nearby home every

1
The victim’s initials are used in accordance with La.R.S. 46:1844(W).

day. While watching movies with him on the couch, she would have her feet in his

lap, and he would rub them. At some point, he began rubbing further up her legs;

eventually he began rubbing her vaginal area over her clothes; finally, he began

putting his hand under her clothes and inserting his finger into her vagina. There

were about twenty instances of this conduct. There was also an incident in which

Defendant pulled her onto his lap and tried to kiss her on the mouth, but she was

able to push away and leave. The victim stated she was too young to understand

what was going on, and Defendant told her not to tell anyone. When she was

eleven, she started having her period and the abuse stopped. A.B. also stated that

her great-grandmother was nearby during a couple of the incidents, but she was

asleep in a recliner. If she started to wake up, or at times she might be approaching

from another room, Defendant would quickly move his hand.

Once, when she was still ten, A.B. told her grandmother that Defendant had

“touched [her] butt,” but her grandmother seemed to think the victim just meant

that he had spanked her. In March 2019, she had a sonogram due to possible

gallbladder issues and expressed concern to her mother regarding possible damage

to her vaginal area, but she did not go into any detail. The victim also testified that

one of the reasons she did not seek help more actively is that she feared “our

families would be just destroyed and that happened after I came out. A lot of my

worst fears happened when I actually told.” She explained that she had to live in

foster care for three months in another parish.

Detective Jerry Twyman of the Vernon Parish Sheriff’s Office testified that

the offense was first reported by A.B.’s teacher. The victim came in to talk to

detectives but talked to a female detective instead of Twyman. Detective Twyman

and another detective, David Vance, alternated speaking to Defendant, who

2

initially denied the offense, multiple times. However, he eventually confessed to

David Vance. The interview, including the confession, was recorded on a disc that

the parties played for the jury.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find no

errors patent.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

Defendant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to

support his conviction for molestation of a juvenile. The standard of review for a

sufficiency claim is well-established:

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, rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100
S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (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 credibility of the witnesses, and
therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility
determinations of the triers of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations
under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino,
436 So.2d 559 (citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228
(La.1983)). In order for this Court to affirm a conviction, however,
the record must reflect that the state has satisfied its burden of proving
the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.

As Defendant notes, molestation of a juvenile is defined by La.R.S. 14:81.2,

which states in pertinent part:

Molestation of a juvenile is the commission by anyone over the
age of seventeen of any lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in
the presence of any child under the age of seventeen, where there is an

3

age difference of greater than two 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. Lack
of knowledge of the juvenile’s age shall not be a defense.

Paragraph (D) of the statute sets forth a separate penalty range when the victim is

under thirteen years of age, but Defendant does not contest the evidence regarding

the victim’s age.

Defendant complains that the conviction was based solely upon the victim’s

allegations. This statement is incorrect. Defendant confessed to a detective that he

inserted his fingers into the victim’s vagina. Thus, Defendant’s statement

corroborated the victim’s allegation. He also complains that the lack of specific

dates or other details made it difficult for him to provide an alibi. However, during

the police interrogation, Defendant seemed to understand the time period at issue.

Defendant’s wife, Gail Chaney, was a potential witness on his behalf. Mrs.

Chaney was in the hospital during the trial, but the parties agreed to admit her

affidavit. In the document, she stated that she was present whenever the victim

visited the house, and she did not see the illegal behavior at issue. This

corroborates the victim’s testimony that Mrs. Chaney was nearby when the

molestations occurred; however, the older woman was either asleep in the same

room or out of the room during the offenses.

Defendant also argues that he was manipulated into confessing to the crime.

This argument does not address sufficiency under the standard discussed in

Kennerson. A sufficiency review does not address the method used to obtain the

evidence at issue, as the review may include even inadmissible evidence. State v.

4

Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992). 2 Defendant now claims that he confessed

simply so he could get home. Defendant gave a fairly detailed confession in which

he admitted to inserting his finger into the victim’s vagina and stated that she asked

him to do so and pulled his hand toward her. He also claimed that she appeared to

enjoy it. Further, Defendant stated the actions occurred beneath a blanket.

Defendant’s argument is an attack on the weight and credibility of the

evidence, but such matters are within the province of the jury. As stated in

Kennerson, it is not the appellate court’s role to second-guess the factfinder’s

assessment of weight and credibility. Also, Defendant does not point toward any

particular discrepancy in the victim’s testimony.

For the reasons discussed, this assignment of error lacks merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

In his second assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court

impaired his right to present a defense by preventing him from introducing a pillow

that had a message from the victim written on it. The hospital gave the pillow to

Defendant after heart surgery. Defendant states that the message on the pillow

contradicted the victim’s trial testimony. As the State points out, he does not

reveal what the message was, and he did not do so at trial. After the court ruled the

pillow inadmissible as not being timely-disclosed pursuant to discovery, Defendant

did not proffer the pillow.

Defendant was allowed to ask the victim about the pillow but was not

allowed to ask her about any message on it. Again, Defendant did not make a

proffer. As the State suggests in its brief, it is not possible to analyze Defendant’s

2
Defendant acknowledges that he did not file a motion to suppress the confession.

5

argument regarding his right to present a defense or to assess the trial court’s

discovery ruling, without knowing what the message on the pillow said.

For the forgoing reasons, we find this assignment of error lacks merit.

DECREE

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

6