Sex dating in chalmette louisiana
After a bench trial, brothers, Lionel Serigne, Jr., and William Serigne, Sr., were convicted of sex crimes committed against juvenile family members. On April 7, 2010, Lionel Serigne was indicted on a single charge of violation of La. The trial court denied the State's motion to consolidate. when two offenders participated in the act, the second offender being WILLIAM R. [sic]; when the victim was prevented from resisting the act from threats of great and immediate harm, in violation of LA R. , to-wit: AGGRAVATED RAPE[.] did commit aggravated rape upon D. .1, to wit: SEXUAL BATTERY, by fondling the genitals of the minor victim, Count 5) ... A(5), which was the sole basis for the defendants being tried together. Both defendants argue on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to convict them.
Lionel Serigne was convicted of the aggravated rape of his cousin, D. He was sentenced to serve a total of forty-four years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. S., who thereafter reported that sex crimes were committed against them by William Serigne, the uncle of B. Being precluded from consolidating the two trials, the State convened a second grand jury and obtained a new indictment on May 30, 2012. A., date of birth December 27, 1970, by having sexual intercourse with D. between October 22, 2004 and November 1, 2004, WILLIAM R. M., date of birth July 25, 1996, in violation of LA. during the years 1983[sic], 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 19, WILLIAM R. stated unequivocally that Lionel Serigne and William Serigne did not participate together in connection with the alleged rapes, thus disproving the State's charge pursuant to La. Although the motions were not entitled "Motion to Quash," the re-urged motions to sever nonetheless had the same substantive complaint. A(5), that was not substantiated by the trial testimony. When issues are raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.
A.] based on the victim being under the age of twelve. providing that the penalty for aggravated rape was life imprisonment, created a circumstance where only one year of the timespan (1976) charged in the indictment fell into the realm of a capital offense. Hypolite did not involve a question of waiver of a jury. Further, Goodley has not been overturned and thus remains our authority. turns upon the determination of when the offense is alleged to have occurred in the indictment. The Constitution and law of this state require capital/non-capital decisions to be made before a case is tried.
The Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty. The State argues that the United States Supreme Court's ruling in 1976 declaring the death penalty for aggravated rape unconstitutional, and the 1977 amendment to La. The State therefore argues that the change in the law permits the State to choose between trying the case as either a capital or a non-capital offense. Rather, it dismissed the defendant's argument as to the constitutionality of Louisiana's scheme of allowing non-unanimous jury verdicts in cases where life imprisonment must be imposed. We adhere to the Supreme Court's consistent analysis and review of this issue, which extends from Holmes through Goodley in its determination that La. As Justice Crichton observed, "It is imperitive to note that the bill of information sets the parameters and dictates the mode of trial." State v.
Therefore, if the trial has been infected with a structural error, there has been no verdict within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.
A.), sexual battery on or about October 31, 2004 (B. On September 28, 2011, the State moved to amend both of the indictments.
Also in 2010, William Serigne was indicted on three charges, aggravated rape during the year 1981(D. The defendants filed various motions including Motions to Quash and Motions for Bills of Particular.
The defendant turned 17 years of age on March 22, 1983.
The court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that after the defendant turned 17 years of age he committed a sexual act involving vaginal penetration upon the victim, D. The victim did not give her consent to the sexual intercourse and her resistance to the penetration was overcome by force of the physical actions of the defendant on the day of the rape and by the years of the defendant overcoming her with force making sure the victim knew her resistance to any and all sexual acts would do no good.