Court Opinion

ID: 9840213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 16:05:53.635775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:13.668997
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                               STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                COURT OF APPEAL

                                  FIRST CIRCUIT

                                   2023 KA 0183

                               STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                      VERSUS

                                MORGAN RATLEY

                                       Judgment Rendered:      SEP 15 2023

                                 On Appeal from the
                         Seventeenth Judicial District Court
                         In and for the Parish of Lafourche
                                  State of Louisiana
                               No. 583242 Section " D"

            The Honorable Christopher J. Boudreaux, Judge Presiding

Kristine M. Russell                           Attorneys for Appellee

District Attorney                             State of Louisiana
Joseph S. Soignet
Jason L. Chatagnier
Assistant District Attorneys
Thibodaux, Louisiana

Jane L. Beebe                                 Attorney for Appellant
Addis, Louisiana                              Morgan Ratley

Morgan Ratley                                 In Proper Person
St. Gabriel, Louisiana

            BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ.
HOLDRIDGE, I

        The defendant, Morgan Ratley, was charged by grand jury indictment with

first degree rape ( count I), a violation of La. R.S.           14: 42; and sexual battery ( count

II), a violation of La. R.S. 14; 43. 1.          He pled not guilty on both counts. Following a

jury trial, he was found guilty as charged on both counts by unanimous verdicts. On

count I, he was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of

parole. On count II, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of ten years at hard labor

without benefit of parole.'             The defendant now appeals, fling a counseled and a pro

se brief. In both briefs, he argues the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence.

For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

                                                   FACTS

                                  a
        The victim, L.C.,             testified that the defendant was her mother' s boyfriend and

moved into their home in Cut Off in May of 2017. Beginning in September of 2018,

when L.C. was thirteen years old, the defendant started touching her breasts when her

mother was in the shower.               According to L.C., between September of 2018 and July

of 2019, the defendant also repeatedly touched her buttocks and vagina with his penis

and his mouth.        L.C. further testified that the defendant would get on top of her when

she was lying on the couch, would pin her arms with his legs, would put his penis in

her mouth, and "[ s] ometimes ...            release[.]".

        On July 12, 2019, L.C. heard a scream when she was in the shower.                       She

discovered that the defendant was tying her mother to a chair in the bedroom. L.C.

testified that once the defendant restrained her mother, he " was able to do whatever he

 The court noted the sentences were not eligible for diminution for good behavior. See La. R.S.
15: 541( 24)( a) &   15: 571. 3( D)( 2).

2 We reference the victim and her mother by their initials.       See La. R.S. 46: 1844( W); State v.
Mangrum, 2020- 0243 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2122121), 321 So. 3d 986, 989 n. 1, writ denied, 2021-
00401 ( La. 10/ 01/ 21), 324 So. 3d 1050.
                                                        2
wanted to [L.C.]."   The defendant made her perform oral sex on him, and he performed

oral sex on her. He also penetrated her vagina with his fingers and his penis. On July

14, 2019, L.C. and her mother escaped from the defendant after he fell asleep.

         L. C. identified ten pictures on the defendant' s cell phone which depicted her

naked.    She identified another nineteen images of herself on the defendant' s Samsung

phone, including a June 22, 2019 image showing L.C.' s shirt raised, exposing her

breasts, and a June 28, 2019 image showing a penis in L.C.' s mouth. According to

L.C., she did not immediately report the sexual abuse because the defendant threatened

to kidnap and sexually assault her best friend. The defendant also threatened to hurt

L.C.' s mother and her dog. L.C. testified she was terrified for her own life and the

lives of those she cared about.

         Elizabeth Surratt Hamilton was accepted by the court as an expert in DNA

analysis.    She testified that, to a statistical certainty, the defendant could not be

excluded as the minor contributor of DNA in the DNA profiles obtained from the

sperm fractions of internal and external anal swabs taken from L.C.

         The defendant testified that he moved in with L.C. and her mother in May of

2017. He stated he touched L.C.' s breasts after she agreed to let him do so ifhe bought

her a phone. He stated he had seen L.C. naked, had touched her under her clothes, had

given her oral sex, and had received oral sex from her. He further admitted he had

ejaculated in her mouth.    He denied pinning L.C. down or threatening to hurt her or

her mother if L.C. refused to comply with his demands.       He admitted he penetrated

L.C. with his finger, but denied penetrating her with his penis. He did not dispute,

however, that an internal anal swab indicated his semen was recovered from L.C.' s

anus.

                                            3
                                HEARSAY EVIDENCE

      In his counseled and pro se assignments of error, the defendant contends the trial

court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. Relying on State v, Hearold, 603 So.2d

731, 738- 39 ( La. 1992), he argues the testimony of Deputy Cheramie concerning what

D.C. told him was hearsay.

       Lafourche Parish Sheriff s Office Deputy Chuck Cheramie testified that in July

of 2019, he responded to a complaint involving D.C. and L.C.            The defense objected

to hearsay when the State asked Deputy Cheramie how he was notified about the

complaint.    The State argued Deputy Cheramie was setting out the information he

received in order to explain " this is why I did what I did in ... connection with ... that

complaint."   The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the State to " keep it

very general" and not present any details to the jury. Thereafter, the following colloquy

occurred:

        STATE]:              Deputy Cheramie, without going into ... detail about
       the information you...   learned, what was the...     nature of the complaint?

        CHERAMIE]:        Basically, the call came out that ... [ D.C.] stated that
       she was held against her will, and her daughter was sexually abused.

        STATE]:              What do you do when you have that information? Do
       you start...   an investigation?

        CHERAMIE]:           We meet with the [ complainant], and hear what' s
       going on; and then, we determine the best course of action —to take.

       Deputy Cheramie' s testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter

asserted, i.e., that D.C. was held against her will and that L.C. was sexually abused,

but rather to explain how the investigation in this matter unfolded.              Thus, the

challenged testimony was not hearsay.            See La. Code Evid. art. 801( C); State v.

Griffin, 2005- 1953R ( La.       App.     1st   Cir. 9114107),   2007   WL   2685432, *   6- 7

 unpublished).   There is no indication that Deputy Cheramie' s testimony concerning

what D,C. told him was offered to prejudice the defendant. Such testimonial evidence

                                                 4
of a police officer is admitted not to prove the truth of the out-of-court statements, but

to explain the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the defendant from the

viewpoint of the investigating officer. See Mitchell, 2016.0834 ( La. App. 1st Cir.

9/21/ 17), 231 So.3d 710, 724, writ denied, 2017- 1890 ( La. 8131/ 18), 251 So. 3d 410;

State v. Morgan, 2009- 1745 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 1/ 10), 2010 WL 1253367, * 3

 unpublished) ("[
                    u]nder certain circumstances, the testimony of a police officer may

encompass information provided by another individual without constituting hearsay if

offered to explain the course of a police investigation and the steps leading to the

defendant' s arrest."); Griffin, 2007 WL 2685432 at * 6.

       Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at

the present trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

La. Code Evid. art. 801( 0).     If such a statement is offered for any other purpose,

however, then the statement is not hearsay. Griffin, 2007 WL 2685432, at * 6. Hearsay

evidence is not admissible except as otherwise provided by the Code of Evidence or

other legislation. La. Code Evid. art. 902; Mitchell, 231 So. 3d at 724.

       Hearold involved convictions for possession of methamphetamine with intent

to distribute and conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

Hearold, 603 So -2d at 733- 34. At trial, over objections, police officers testified that

the passenger in the car with the defendant told them at the scene, " he did have a

methamphetamine problem[,]      but he wasn' t the one dealing tonight," and that they had

 received information that [ the passenger] and [ defendant] were involved in narcotics

dealings in the eastern part of the parish[.]"       Hearold, 603 So. 2d at 733.

       The court in Hearold noted, as to any exception to the hearsay rule based on an

officer' s   testimony   regarding   information         which   immediately   prompted   an

investigation, the issue of relevancy was significantly interrelated with the hearsay

issue, to -wit:

                                                 5
               Generally, an explanation of the officer' s actions should never be
       an acceptable basis upon which to admit an out-of-court declaration when
       the so- called " explanation" involves a direct assertion of criminal activity
       against the accused....    The probative value of the mere fact that an out-
                                                                                ut-

       ofcourt declaration was made is generally outweighed greatly by the
       of-court

       likelihood that the jury will consider the statement for the truth of the
       matter asserted.

       Hearold, 603 So. 2d at 737- 38.

       The court in Hearold held that the first statement, concerning who was " dealing

that night,"   was inadmissible hearsay that did not qualify under the co- conspirator

exception, and thus, should not have been presented to the jury. Hearold, 603 So.2d

at 738. In regard to the second statement, the court held that the reason why the officer

began his investigation of the defendant was totally irrelevant to the issue of the

defendant' s guilt of any of the essential elements of the crime and introduction of the

statement deprived the jury of the " opportunity to evaluate the out-of-court declarant

whose credibility may have been substantially less than that of a police officer

testifying in full uniform." Id. Lastly, the court noted the officer' s testimony went far

beyond the scope of the question about the substance of the investigation. Id.

       Our review of the record convinces us that Hearold is distinguishable. In the

instant case, Deputy Cheramie limited his response to his investigation of the instant

offenses without mentioning any other criminal activity in which the defendant may

have been involved.       Further, Deputy Cheramie' s response did not involve a direct

assertion of criminal activity against the defendant. Lastly, the explanation did not

deprive the jury of the opportunity to evaluate the out-of-court declarant because D.C.

and L.C. both testified at trial to establish all facts contained in the response.'

       These assignments of error are without merit.

 Because we find that Deputy Cheramie' s testimony was not hearsay, we pretermit discussion of the
admittance of such testimony as being harmless error.
                                                6
                               CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences of the

defendant, Morgan Ratley.

      CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.