193 So. 3d 603
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Darrell Kennedy Mallette was indicted for aggravated rape (child under 13); bench trial (waived jury) resulted in conviction for molestation of a juvenile (La. R.S. 14:81.2).
- Victim (E.H.) gave a forensic interview and trial testimony alleging repeated sexual touching beginning about age 6 through 12; medical exams were normal; some family members contradicted or minimized her statements; defendant denied the acts.
- Trial court initially granted a new trial post-verdict but the State obtained writ relief and this court reinstated the molestation conviction; defendant was later sentenced to 90 years (with at least 25 years without benefits), and appeals followed.
- On appeal defendant challenged sufficiency of the evidence and alleged his sentence was excessive; the appellate court reviewed whether the State proved the additional "use of force or influence" element required for molestation (as distinct from indecent behavior).
- The appellate court concluded the evidence did not establish use of force or influence by virtue of a position of control/supervision, but did establish lewd acts that satisfied indecent behavior with a juvenile; it vacated the molestation conviction, rendered a conviction for indecent behavior, and remanded for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for molestation (La. R.S. 14:81.2) | State: victim’s testimony and corroborating investigation support elements including use of influence (defendant provided family financial support; abused when alone). | Mallette: victim’s statements were inconsistent, vague, and State failed to prove force or that defendant used supervisory influence to overbear victim’s will. | Court: Victim’s testimony supports lewd acts but not the additional „use of force or influence" element; molestation conviction vacated. |
| Appropriate responsive verdict | State: original conviction stands for molestation. | Mallette: if molestation unsupported, only lesser offense should remain. | Court: Evidence supports the lesser included offense of indecent behavior with a juvenile; rendered that conviction. |
| Sentencing/excessiveness | State: sentence imposed by trial court. | Mallette: sentence constitutionally excessive. | Court: Moot as to original molestation sentence because conviction vacated; remanded for sentencing on indecent behavior. |
| Error patent issues at sentencing (indeterminate aspects) | N/A (appellate review) | N/A | Court identified patent errors (indeterminate "at least" language, unspecified restitution as court costs, default time despite apparent indigence) and remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Guillory, 45 So.3d 612 (La. 2010) (trial court must state reasons when granting a new trial; unexplained grants may be error)
- State v. Willis, 915 So.2d 365 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2005) (victim testimony describing ongoing sexual conduct can support convictions for lesser included sexual offenses when details for each count are lacking)
- State v. Leblanc, 506 So.2d 1197 (La. 1987) (distinguishes molestation from indecent behavior: molestation requires use of force or other enumerated means beyond mere touching)
- State v. Roy, 177 So.3d 1103 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2015) (discusses scope of "supervision and control"—can be satisfied by emotional control, relative/father-figure roles, or live-in status)