347 So.3d 1030
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Sylvester Hayman (age ~60) was tried for sexual offenses against two grandchildren: E.G. (born 2009) and A.M. (born 2011). Jury convicted him of indecent behavior with E.G. (Count One) and attempted indecent behavior with A.M. (Count Two).
- Allegations arose Thanksgiving 2017 after children and a family friend disclosed abuse; investigators obtained recorded forensic interviews, A.M.’s drawings, E.G.’s written statements, and a pediatric forensic exam diagnosing repeated sexual abuse of E.G.
- Victims lived for extended periods in defendant’s care; witnesses described victims as withdrawn and upset when questioned; defendant denied the allegations and testified he was never alone with the children.
- Trial court sentenced Count One to 20 years (hard labor) with 2 years without benefits, Count Two to 10 years (hard labor) with 1 year without benefits; sentences ordered consecutive; sex-offender registration imposed.
- On appeal defendant challenged sufficiency of evidence (Count Two), denial of new-trial/post-verdict acquittal motions, and excessiveness of sentences. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Count Two conviction and Count One sentence, but remanded for resentencing on Count Two (illegal benefit restriction) and correction of the Uniform Commitment Order (UCO).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (Count Two) | Recorded interviews, A.M.’s drawings, corroborating statements (D.D., E.G.), victim demeanor, and context sufficed | A.M.’s statements/drawings ambiguous; lack of direct testimony or physical corroboration; key witnesses not called | Affirmed: evidence sufficient under Jackson; jury credibility determinations upheld |
| Denial of new trial / post-verdict acquittal | Trial court properly denied motions because evidence supported conviction | Motions should have been granted for insufficiency and evidentiary gaps | Denied: appellate court defers to trier of fact and credibility findings |
| Excessiveness of sentences | Aggravating factors (position of trust, multiple victims, repeated abuse), PSI recommended severe consecutive terms | Defendant’s age, limited criminal history, and family responsibilities argue for leniency | Affirmed Count One and overall sentence discretion; not constitutionally excessive |
| Error patent: illegal benefit restriction & UCO errors | N/A (court raised statutory defect) | Contended sentence terms and records contained errors | Remanded: Count Two sentence violates statutory minimum benefit restriction (must be ≥2 years); remand for resentencing and correction of UCO |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Clifton, 248 So.3d 691 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2018) (deference to fact-finder; single witness testimony may suffice)
- State v. Harris, 846 So.2d 709 (La. 2003) (responsive/verdicts and lesser offenses principles)
- State v. Howard, 259 So.3d 583 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2018) (upholding near-maximum sentence where defendant exploited position of trust)
- State v. Craft, 162 So.3d 539 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (upholding consecutive severe sentences in child-sex-abuse context)