115 So. 3d 578
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cleveland was charged by bill of information with simple rape (La. R.S. 14:43) on 4 August 2010 and pled not guilty at arraignment on 12 August 2010.
- A six-member jury convicted Cleveland on 20 July 2011 and the court sentenced him to 15 years at hard labor with credit for time served on 5 August 2011.
- S.H., the victim, testified she was intoxicated after attending a craw-fish boil and a Bridge Lounge visit, had memory gaps, did not consent to sex, and was found naked and unresponsive at the scene.
- Witnesses described the victim’s intoxicated condition that night; Isaiah Boyd testified he saw Cleveland with the victim while others were dispersing people after discovering her in a sexual situation.
- The defense presented a toxicology expert who testified the victim could have been intoxicated but not necessarily unconscious, and various defense witnesses described Cleveland’s statements after the incident.
- The record disclosed one patent sentencing error (parole/probation language) which the court addressed under controlling authority; the court affirmed Cleveland’s conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for simple rape | Cleveland argues the state failed to prove beginning of encounter with eyewitness. | Cleveland contends evidence insufficient to prove lack of consent due to incapacity. | Sufficient evidence supports conviction |
| Denial of challenges for cause to jurors | Cleveland contends trial court erred in denying cause challenges, forcing reliance on peremptories. | Cleveland argues voir dire was biased against him; jurors could be impartial. | No abuse of discretion; challenges for cause properly denied |
| Requested special jury instruction on stupor | Cleveland sought a precise definition of stupor not provided by the court. | Stupor was adequately explained by the court’s charge; no prejudice shown. | Assignment meritless; no reversible error |
| Excessiveness of sentence | Cleveland asserts fifteen-year term is excessive for simple rape. | Sentence falls within statutory range and is not grossly disproportionate. | Sentence affirmed as not excessive |
| Pro se challenge to evidentiary/prosecutorial conduct | Cleveland alleges improper exclusion of evidence and prosecutorial remarks | Record shows no improper remarks or prejudice; evidence properly excluded or deemed admissible | Assignments without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Campbell, 983 So.2d 810 (La. 2008) (deference to trial court on voir dire; peremptory challenges explained)
- State v. Kang, 859 So.2d 649 (La. 2003) (voir dire held in context; record viewed as whole)
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (standard for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Segers, 355 So.2d 238 (La. 1978) (jury charge inclusion of properly stated law)
- State v. Marse, 365 So.2d 1319 (La. 1978) (standard for reversible error in jury instruction)
- State v. Williams, 708 So.2d 703 (La. 1998) (closing argument limits; prosecutor remarks)