Court Opinion

ID: 9389967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:05:38.61898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.782708
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                              STATE OF LOUISIANA

                               COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 2022 KA 1047

                              STATE OF LOUISIANA
    11
Q                                   VERSUS

                      CHANSE EVERETT MORTENSON

                              DATE OF JUDGMENT-          APR 2 6 2023

    ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY- SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
              PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA
                          NUMBER 2486- 2020, DIVISION J

                      HONORABLE ELLEN M. CREEL, JUDGE

Warren L. Montgomery                       Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney                          State of Louisiana
Matthew Caplan

Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana

Walter R. Woodruff, Jr.                    Counsel for Defendant -Appellant
Metairie, Louisiana                        Chanse Everett Mortenson

                 BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND RESTER, JJ.

Disposition: CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, J.

       The defendant, Chanse Everett Mortenson, was charged by bill of information

with cruelty to juveniles,        a violation of La. R.S.         14: 93, and pled not guilty.

Following a jury trial, he was found guilty of attempted cruelty to juveniles,                     a

violation of La. R.S. 14: 27 and La. R.S. 14: 93,             by unanimous verdict. He was

sentenced to four years at hard labor, suspended, and three years on probation. The

defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.                        For the

following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

                                             FACTS

       The victim, J. G.,'   was born on January 7, 2005. In 2019, he was living with

his mother and the defendant in the defendant' s house.                    According to J. G.' s

testimony, in May 2019, he was forced to sleep outside for multiple days with no

tent, blanket, or mattress as punishment for being disrespectful.            He did not bathe or

change clothes while outside, and the only food he had was either given to him or

thrown on the ground for him by his mother or the defendant. The defendant accused

J.G. of being disrespectful and disobedient because J. G.' s eyes "             dart[ ed] around,"

when J. G. looked at the defendant. J. G. indicated he was told to apologize or leave

the house, and although he apologized, he was still forced to leave the house. J. G.

testified his punishment was " terrible"        and was "   all [ he] thought about."      He was

                                                                                       2
subsequently hospitalized for suicidal ideations and prescribed Lexapro.

       In October 2019, the defendant punished J. G. for fourteen days because he

was disrespectful and told his father about the defendant' s actions. At the beginning

of that punishment J. G. was allowed to sleep on the floor inside, but he was later

forced to again sleep outside. On the thirteenth day ofthe punishment, the defendant

 The victim is referenced herein only by his initials. See La. R.S. 46. 1844( W).

z Escitalopram, sold as Lexapro, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor used to treat depression
and generalized anxiety disorder.
                                                  2
forced J. G. to " work the floor"         with a rag and a bucket of water.                After J. G.

completed the work, the defendant made him repeat the task.                        While J. G.    was

cleaning the floor, the defendant struck him with an open hand " too many [ times] to

count,"    bruising J. G.' s eye and bloodying his nose.'        After J. G. reported the incident

to his father, he was again forced to sleep outside. During that time, he was not

allowed into the house to use the bathroom and instead urinated in the woods and

defecated at school.

         On   October 30,      2019,    St.   Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office Detective

Angelica Lopez visited J. G. at the defendant' s house.               Detective Lopez and child

protective investigators spent approximately three hours outside the residence,

waiting for J. G.' s mother to return from work. Although it was cold and raining,

J. G.,   who was fourteen years old, was also outside wearing shorts.                    J. G. had no

protection from the mosquitos and was actively scratching mosquito bites on his

legs. The defendant repeatedly told J. G. he could only go inside if he apologized for

his actions. J. G. remained outside throughout the time authorities were present and

even after his mother returned. Later that night, authorities removed J.G. from the

home.

         Alice Broussard, a guidance counselor at Covington High school, first

counseled J. G. at the end of September 2019. He was fourteen years old at the time

and was upset because of his relationship with his mother and her boyfriend.                     J. G.

told Broussard that his mother and the defendant removed his bed and everything

else from his bedroom except for a pillow and a blanket. In October 2019, J. G.

reported conditions had worsened, stating that the defendant had hit him four times

and made his nose bleed. Broussard saw bruises under J. G.' s left eye. J. G. also told

Broussard he was being forced to sleep outside and that the only method of bathing

3 In a recorded pretrial interview, J. G. stated the defendant struck him " like five times."

                                                   3
available to him was to use the garden hose. He stated his mother had made the car

available for him to sleep in, but he was not allowed to sleep in the house.    He also

told Broussard that he was given different food than everyone else and was not

allowed to eat dinner with the family.

       Dr. Neha Mehta examined J. G. on November 12, 2019. She diagnosed child

physical abuse on the basis of J. G. reporting that he was hit in the head, and the blow

caused a nosebleed and left a mark. Dr. Mehta also diagnosed child neglect on the

basis of J. G. being denied available resources, including food, shelter, heat, sleeping

conditions,   and basic hygiene to J. G.    Dr. Mehta noted J.G. reported punching

himself in the head and wanting to kill himself after spending two days sleeping on

the grass with bugs and ants and without food or water. Additionally, Dr. Mehta

diagnosed emotional abuse on the basis of isolation, spurning, and lack of self-worth

as a result of feeling unwanted. In Dr. Mehta' s opinion, striking a child in the head

was unreasonable discipline because of the risk of significant injury to the child' s

eyes, teeth, and brain.

       The defendant testified that J. G. was not his biological child, his stepchild, or

his adopted child, but that he was dating J. G.' s mother.    When asked about J. G.' s

disobedience or disrespect requiring discipline, the defendant stated J. G. did not

speak to his mother very nicely and frequently remained silent.     The defendant also

claimed J. G. would do his chores " halfway and not all the way." According to the

defendant, he and J.G.' s mother disciplined J. G. by taking away his cell phone, TV

privileges, movie theater privileges, and pool privileges.       The defendant stated,

 pretty soon, [ J. G.]   had everything taken away from him, including his toothbrush

and his bed."

       According to the defendant, the incident in May occurred after J. G. cussed at

his mother and she decided he could stay outside in a chair on the screened -in porch.

The defendant claimed J. G. spent only one night on the porch and was provided with

                                             4
a blanket and a towel to use as a pillow.   The defendant denied making J. G. sleep on

the grass.    He also claimed J. G. was given chips, sandwiches, and bottled water.

According to the defendant, J.G. kicked the screen porch door and punched the

window, but pulled his punches " because he didn' t want to get cut." The defendant

did not deny that J. G. was taken to the hospital the next day when he said he was

going to hurt himself.

      In regard to corporal punishment, the defendant stated he had slapped J. G. on

two occasions.     The first occasion was when J. G. "   stepp[ ed] forward"      toward his

mother.      The second occasion was when J. G. " stepp[ ed] forward" toward the

defendant. In regard to this incident, the defendant claimed he warned J. G. several

tunes and backed up twice before slapping him.        The defendant stated on another

occasion J. G. " chested up"   to him in the middle of the driveway.       The defendant

claimed J.G. swung at him, and he moved his head out of the way before taking J. G.

down to the ground without hitting him or slapping him. According to the defendant,

J. G. was the aggressor in the incidents and his "   chest was puffed up and his fists

were doubled."    However, the defendant admitted that when he saw J. G. was angry,

he told the fourteen -year-old boy: " You want   to hit me, don' t you[?] ... "    Well you

go right ahead.   See how that works out for you."   The defendant denied acting with

any intention to be cruel or to mistreat J. G.

      In regard to the October incident, the defendant claimed J. G. falsely reported

to his father that the defendant had hit him four or five times and bloodied his nose.

The defendant denied striking J. G. during the incident, stating instead that his finger

accidentally went into J. G.' s nose while he was trying to draw J.G.' s attention to the

parts of the floor he had missed while cleaning.     The defendant stated he told J. G.

either to tell the truth and apologize for getting his mother yelled at and threatened

by his father, or to leave the house.    The defendant stated that J. G. walked to the

unscreened front porch and remained there for approximately three hours.                The

                                            E
defendant claimed J.G. then repeatedly refused his mother' s offers to come back

inside, and she eventually gave him a blanket and a pillow and opened the car for

him.

                      SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

       In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues the State failed to adduce

evidence sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he intentionally

committed the offense of attempted cruelty to juveniles. He argues the record is

devoid of any evidence that his completed actions caused the victim any unjustifiable

pain or suffering and, without sufficient evidence of this essential and necessary

element, his conviction cannot stand.

       A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand, as it violates due

process.   See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, La. Const. art. I, § 2.      In reviewing claims

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine whether

any rational trier -of f-act could have found the essential elements of the crime proven

beyond a reasonable doubt based on the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and

inadmissible, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ( 1979); State v.

Oliphant, 2013- 2973 ( La. 2/ 21/ 14), 133 So. 3d 1255, 1258- 59 ( per curiam);   see also

La. Code Crim. P. art. 821( B); State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1308- 09 (La. 1988).

State v. Livous, 2018- 0016 (La. App. I st Cir. 9/24118), 259 So.3d 1036, 1039- 40, writ

denied, 2018- 1788 ( La. 4/ 15/ 19), 267 So. 3d 1130.   When circumstantial evidence

forms the basis of the conviction, the evidence, " assuming   every fact to be proved that

the evidence tends to prove . . .     must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of

innocence." La. R.S. 15: 438; Oliphant, 133 So.3d at 1258; Livous, 259 So.3d at 1040.

       The due process standard does not require the reviewing court to determine

whether it believes the witnesses or whether it believes the evidence establishes guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mire, 2014- 2295 ( La. 1127/ 16), 269 So. 3d 698,

                                           2
703 ( per curiam).        Rather, appellate review is limited to determining whether the facts

established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by

that evidence are sufficient for any rational trier -of f-act to conclude beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime.

State v. Gardner, 2016- 0192 (La. App. 1 st Cir. 9119116),               204 So. 3d 265, 267.

          In this case, the defendant was charged with cruelty to a juvenile, but the jury

returned a verdict of guilty of attempted cruelty to a juvenile. The offense of cruelty

to juveniles includes the " intentional or criminally negligent"                     mistreatment      or

neglect by anyone 17 years of age or older of any child under the age of 17 whereby

unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused to the child.               La. R.S. 14: 93( A)( 1).     Thus,

cruelty to a juvenile can be committed either when a person has general intent to or

is criminally negligent in mistreating or neglecting the child, regardless of whether

the person had an intent to cause the child unjustifiable pain and suffering. See State

v. Barnett, 521 So. 2d 663, 665 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 1988). In contrast, a person may

be found guilty of attempted cruelty to a juvenile under La. R.S. 14: 27( A) only if,

 having a specific intent" to commit the offense, he does or omits an act for the

purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object. Thus, while

general intent or criminal negligence is sufficient for the commission of cruelty to a

juvenile, specific intent is an essential element for the commission of attempted

cruelty to a juvenile.         La. R.S. 14: 27( A); La. R.S. 14: 93.

4 La. R.S. 14: 10(2) defines general criminal intent as follows:

          General criminal intent is present whenever there is specific intent, and also when
          the circumstances indicate that the offender, in the ordinary course of human
          experience,     must have adverted to the prescribed criminal consequences as
          reasonably certain to result from his act or failure to act.

   Specific criminal intent is that " state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that
the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to
act."   La. R.S. 14: 10( 1).  Though intent is a question of fact, it need not be proven as a fact. It may
be inferred from the       circumstances of the transaction. Specific intent may be proven by direct
evidence, such as statements by a defendant, or by inference from circumstantial evidence, such
as a defendant' s actions or facts depicting the circumstances. Specific intent is an ultimate legal
conclusion to be resolved by the factfinder. State v. Coleman, 2021- 0870 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
                                                      7
        The defendant' s testimony presented a version of events in which he denied

any wrongdoing and offered as a hypothesis of innocence that he acted to reasonably

discipline J. G.     Citing La. R.S. 14: 18( 4), he contends on appeal that a defendant' s

conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, when the defendant' s conduct

consists of reasonable discipline of a minor by a parent.            La. R.S. 14: 1$( 4). Viewed

in the context of the cruelty to juveniles statute, La. R. S. 14: 93, "         unjustifiable pain

and suffering" are words of limitation.           In a parent' s case, the application of the

statute is limited to mistreatment causing pain and suffering exceeding the bounds

of reasonable discipline.       See State v. Comeaux, 319 So. 2d 897, 899 ( La. 1975);

Barnett, 521 So. 2d at 666.

        We express no opinion on whether La. R.S. 14: 18( 4) is applicable under the

circumstances herein, where the defendant is not the minor' s parent but the minor

and his mother, the defendant' s girlfriend, are living in the defendant' s home and

the defendant may have acted with the mother' s consent.                    Regardless, the jury

observed the defendant' s appearance and demeanor during his testimony, and its

verdict indicates it did not find his claim that his conduct was merely reasonable

disciplining of J. G. to be credible. The jury obviously rejected this testimony.                  A

determination of the weight to be given evidence is a question of fact for the trier -

of f-act and is not subject to appellate review.          State v. Morrison, 582 So. 2d 295,

303 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 1991).

        A review of the record reveals any rational trier -of -fact, viewing the evidence

in the light most favorable to the State, could have concluded beyond a reasonable

doubt that the defendant acted with the specific intent to mistreat or abuses J. G. to

an extent sufficient to result in unreasonable pain and suffering and performed acts

4/ 8/ 22), 342 So. 3d 7, 12.

s As used La. R.S. 14: 93, " mistreatment" is equated with abuse. State v. Booker, 2002- 1269 ( La.
App. 1st Cir. 2114103), 839 So. 2d 455, 459, writ denied, 2003- 1145 ( La. 10131/ 03), 857 So. 2d 476.
                                                  8
in furtherance of that intent.    In May 2019, the defendant forced J. G. to remain

outside, sleeping on the grass, for multiple days. According to J. G.' s testimony,

while he was given some food during this time, he was deprived of adequate food.

The defendant' s own testimony established that the May 2019 " discipline"       of J. G.

resulted in J. G. threatening to harm himself, ultimately leading to his hospitalization

for suicidal ideations and being prescribed anti -depressant medication.   Further, the

defendant admitted that shortly thereafter, he and J. G.' s mother had a discussion

with someone from the Department of Family Services, who advised them that J. G.

should not be left outside except for a cooling -off period no longer than three hours.

      Nevertheless, despite being aware ofthe deleterious effect being forced to stay

outside in May had on J.G.,      the defendant again banished J. G. from his home in

October 2019, after first making him sleep on the floor for several nights.         The

defendant forced J.G. to remain outside exposed to cold weather, rain, and biting

insects for days.   During this time, J. G. was not allowed to use the facilities in the

house for any purpose, including to relieve himself or for hygiene purposes.        J. G.

resorted to using a hose pipe to wash himself

       When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the trier -of f-act reasonably

rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant' s own testimony, that

hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that

raises a reasonable doubt.    Morrison, 582 So. 2d at 303.     Based on its credibility

determinations, the jury rejected the defendant' s claim that, rather than mistreating

or abusing J. G., he was reasonably disciplining J.G. and teaching him to apologize.

The defendant' s testimony was directly contrary to J. G.' s testimony regarding the

mistreatment he was subjected to and the fact that he did apologize but was still not

permitted inside the house.       Once the jury rejected the defendant' s reasonable

discipline defense, there was no other hypothesis of innocence raising a reasonable

doubt as to the defendant' s guilt.    The defendant' s conduct evidenced his active

                                            I
desire to mistreat and abuse J. G. to an extent causing unjustifiable pain and suffering

and supports the verdict returned by the jury. See State v. Freeman, 409 So. 2d 581,

587 ( La.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 845, 103 S. Ct. 100, 74 L.Ed. 2d 90 ( 1982) (       jury

properly charged with attempted cruelty to a juvenile on the basis of evidence the

defendant intentionally mistreated the juvenile).

      This court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to

overturn a factfinder' s determination of guilt.   The testimony of the victim alone is

sufficient to prove the elements of the offense.   The trier o
                                                             - f f-act may accept or reject,

in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. State v. Johnson, 2013- 0372 ( La.

App. 1 st Cir. 12127113), 2013 WL 6858334, * 3 ( unpublished),    writ denied, 2014- 0254

La. 11126114), 152 So. 3d 895.   Further, in reviewing the evidence, we cannot say the

factfinder' s determination was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented.

See State v. Ordodi, 2006- 0207 ( La. 11129106), 946 So.2d 654, 662.         An appellate

court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses

for that of the factfinder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an

exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the

factfinder.   See State v. Calloway, 2007- 2306 ( La. 1121109),     1 So. 3d 417, 418 ( per

curiam).

      This assignment of error is without merit.

       CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

                                           10