Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn HARRISON
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1992-11-30
Citations: 609 So. 2d 789
Docket Number: No. 91-K-2743
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn HARRISON.
Judges: DENNIS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 609
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn HARRISON.
No. 91-K-2743.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov. 30, 1992.
Elizabeth W. Cole, New Orleans, for applicant.
Richard P. Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Valentin M. Solino, and Jack Peebles, Asst. Dist. Attys., for respondent.

Opinion:
WATSON, Justice.
A jury found defendant, Glenn Harrison, guilty of: unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling (LSA-R.S. 14:62.3); first degree robbery (LSA-R.S. 14:64.1); aggravated rape (LSA-R.S. 14:42); and aggravated crime against nature (LSA-R.S. 14:89.1). The court of appeal affirmed the convictions. A writ was granted to consider whether the trial error in charging the jury contributed to the jury's verdict. The jury was instructed that a reasonable doubt was "such a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty" in violation of Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990).
The record reflects that Harrison's counsel objected timely to the court's defining reasonable doubt for the jury.
On September 20, 1988, about 5:00 p.m., the victim noticed a man talking to her neighbor. Later, the same man asked for a drink of water. When she went inside to get the water, he followed her, threatened her with a screw driver, forced her to perform oral sex, and then raped her vaginal-Iy. He demanded money and was given fifteen or twenty dollars. The victim was forced to douche herself. After the man left, the victim went to her boyfriend's apartment a few doors away. Her boyfriend called the police. The police found a bankbook and a passport bearing Harrison's name in the victim's apartment. The victim was described by the examining doctor as very fearful and anxious. No seminal fluid, abrasions or bruises were present. The victim identified Harrison from a photographic lineup. He was arrested approximately a year later in California.
The instruction in Cage went beyond this one by including other terms: "moral certainty" and "actual substantial doubt." However, Cage stated that the word "grave" suggested a higher degree of doubt than that required for acquittal un der a reasonable doubt standard. 498 U.S. at 39-41, 111 S.Ct. at 329-330. On remand, the trial error in Cage was found to be harmless because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming. State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 211, 116 L.Ed.2d 170.
The court of appeal concluded that the jury instruction to Harrison's jury, which included only part of the language in Cage, did not violate defendant's rights. However, any erroneous explanation of reasonable doubt may constitute reversible error. See State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938 (La.1984). Compare State v. Sullivan, 596 So.2d 177 (La.1992), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 373, — L.Ed.2d-(1992).
Defense counsel argued that Harrison's encounter with the victim was consensual. The rape accusation was allegedly fabricated for the victim's boyfriend. Since there was no physical evidence of trauma and Harrison had carelessly abandoned identifying documents, there was evidence supporting that story. The jury deliberated over four hours, which indicates some doubt about Harrison's guilt. The jury might have had a reasonable doubt, but not a "grave uncertainty". Under these circumstances, the trial error cannot be described as harmless.
For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DENNIS, J., concurs.
MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., concur and assign reasons.
COLE, J., respectfully dissents. Within the factual context of this case, the error was harmless.