126 So. 3d 506
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Ronald Reel was indicted on aggravated rape (count1) and unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling (count2); he was convicted of forcible rape (count1) and guilty as charged on count2.
- Initial sentencing: count1 40 years with 2 years without parole and time served; count2 six years, concurrent; sentences ran concurrently.
- Post-sentencing, a multiple bill adjudged him a triple felony offender; on Sept. 3, 2010 he was resentenced to 80 years on count1, concurrent with other sentences.
- Trial evidence showed victim T.P. testified defendant broke into her brother W.P.’s home at gunpoint, raped her, and threatened to kill her and set the house on fire; DNA from semen matched Reel.
- Investigative and forensic details included: tampered surveillance wires, gas can and tools found at scene, DNA testing by Sparacino confirming defendant as semen donor, and fingerprints not suitable for comparison; police reports showed no forced-entry evidence at the scene.
- One trial-issue concern noted as an error patent: 24-hour delay mandated by law between ruling on motion for new trial and initial sentencing, but harmless due to later resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for forcible rape | Reel: no clear identification of sexual act; no proof of penetration or force. | Reel: insufficient evidence to prove all elements of forcible rape. | Evidence proves all elements; conviction affirmed. |
| Indictment amendment for count2 | Amendment to add owner (W.P.) prejudiced defense; improper without hearing. | Amendment within DA’s authority; no prejudice; adequate notice. | Amendment proper; no reversible prejudice; indictment sufficient. |
| Arraignment on multiple bill | Failure to arraign on multiple bill violated rights. | Procedural irregularity waived; trial proceeded properly. | Waived; multiple-offender status proven. |
| Article 930.8 notice defect | Failure to provide 930.8 timing for post-conviction relief. | Language precatory, not enforceable right. | Not error; precatory language does not require action. |
| Napue/Giglio false evidence claim | State presented false December 2009 jail call to mislead jury. | State knew/used false evidence; violated due process. | Call content not proven false; not material; no Napue violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Sutton, 436 So.2d 471 (La.1983) (direct and circumstantial evidence review methodology)
- State v. Neslo, 433 So.2d 73 (La.1983) (pre-trial amendment authority of district attorney)
- State v. Nunnery, 891 So.2d 67 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (elements of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. Supreme Court 1959) (prosecutorial obligation to correct false testimony (due process))