State Of Louisiana v. Morgan Ratley ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                     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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2023KA0183

Filed Date: 9/15/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/15/2023