180 So. 3d 271
La.2015Background
- Defendant William J. Graham was indicted for aggravated incest based on alleged sexual contact with a person who later became his stepsibling; indictment time window preceded parents' marriage.
- At trial, after both sides rested, the State's proof failed to establish the essential element of familial affinity (step-relationship) required for aggravated incest.
- Over defense objection, the district court permitted the jury to consider a responsive verdict of "guilty of molestation of a juvenile," an offense not listed as a legislatively authorized responsive verdict for aggravated incest.
- No evidence had been introduced on the additional element required for molestation under the State's theory — that the act was accomplished by use of influence due to a position of control or supervision — and no voir dire or opening addressed that element.
- The jury convicted Graham of molestation of a juvenile and the trial court imposed a lengthy hard-labor sentence; the court of appeal affirmed.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding molestation is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated incest and the late addition of the molestation verdict rendered the trial fundamentally unfair; it ordered entry of a post-verdict judgment of acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "molestation of a juvenile" is a lesser-included offense of aggravated incest | Molestation is one enumerated prohibited act within the aggravated incest statute, so it is a lesser-included offense | Molestation requires an additional element (use of influence/control) not necessarily required for aggravated incest; thus it is not included | Not a lesser-included offense; reversing courts that treated it as such |
| Whether permitting the molestation verdict after both parties rested violated due process | State argued responsive verdict appropriate and jury could convict on that theory | Graham argued he had no notice or opportunity to defend against the extra element; addition after rest was unfair | Trial rendered fundamentally unfair; court erred in permitting the late responsive verdict |
| Whether the evidence supported a conviction for molestation (use of control/supervision) | State argued the jury could infer control from defendant's status as older stepbrother | Graham argued there was no evidence of actual exertion of control or supervision | Evidence insufficient to prove the required use of influence/control; conviction unsupported |
| Effect of jury verdict on retrial/double jeopardy | State implicitly sought retrial on aggravated incest if molestation vacated | Graham argued the jury's verdict on the lesser responsive offense operated as an acquittal of aggravated incest and bars retrial | Jury's verdict operated as an implied acquittal of aggravated incest; post-verdict judgment of acquittal ordered (no retrial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948) (due process violated when conviction rests on charge not actually tried)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State ex rel. Elaire v. Blackburn, 424 So.2d 246 (La. 1982) (trial judge discretion on responsive verdicts; reviewing court must assess evidentiary support)
- State v. Mayeux, 498 So.2d 701 (La. 1986) (illegal or unsupported responsive verdicts and retrial discussion)
- Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 (1970) (conviction of lesser included offense operates as an acquittal of greater offense)
- Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (acquittal ends jeopardy even if not followed by judgment)
- Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962) (limitations on retrial following improper actions terminating a trial)
- State v. Campbell, 670 So.2d 1212 (La. 1996) (jury instructions allowing improper responsive verdicts can render verdicts ambiguous)
- State v. Simmons, 817 So.2d 16 (La. 2002) (definition of lesser-included offenses principles)