State v. Drake
2011 La. App. LEXIS 795
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Drake was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary and forcible rape; sentences were 30 years for burglary and 40 years for rape, concurrent; conviction and sentence subject to appeal with remand for sex offender notice.
- Victim M.W. testified Drake entered her home without permission, assaulted her, bit her, and thereafter raped her in her residence.
- DNA analysis showed Drake’s DNA mixed with the victim’s on bite marks and semen, supporting sexual assaultEvidence included eyewitness identification from a lineup.
- Drake testified to varying accounts, including consensual prior relations and victim’s possession of keys; trial evidence included injuries to M.W. and a broken window.
- Trial court failed to provide written notice of sex offender registration requirements, triggering a remand for proper notice under La. R.S. 15:543 and related statutes.
- The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, but remanded to provide the required sex offender notification notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated burglary | State argues entry was unauthorized and coupled with intent to rape; evidence of violence supports burglary element. | Drake argues lack of proof of non-permission and intent to commit a felony inside the dwelling. | Sufficient evidence supports aggravated burglary under 14:60(3). |
| Sufficiency of evidence for forcible rape | Victim’s testimony plus DNA evidence establish non-consensual intercourse. | Defense contends lack of medical testimony to prove force or non-consent. | Sufficient evidence supports forcible rape; victim alone admissible under case law. |
| Double jeopardy claim | No dual jeopardy because offenses have distinct elements. | Prosecution for both offenses violates Blockburger/same evidence tests. | No double jeopardy; aggravated burglary and forcible rape involve different elements and evidence. |
| Error patent—sex offender notification | Trial court should have notified Drake of sex offender registration requirements. | Remand for written notice of sex offender registration requirements under La. R.S. 15:543 et seq. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard, 746 So.2d 49 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1999) (sufficiency review and post-verdict motions)
- State v. Pigford, 922 So.2d 517 (La. 2006) (standard for reviewing sufficiency; deference to jury)
- State v. Dotie, 1 So.3d 833 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2009) (sufficiency; credibility not reweighed)
- State v. Smith, 661 So.2d 442 (La. 1995) (credibility and weight of testimony are for jury)
- State v. Hill, 956 So.2d 758 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2007) (great deference to jury’s credibility findings)
- State v. Redfearn, 22 So.3d 1078 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2010) (double jeopardy framework in Louisiana)
- State v. Ceasar, 856 So.2d 236 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2003) (Blockburger and same evidence tests for DJ)