State v. Vargas-Alcerreca
2013 WL 5488828, 2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 1070, 126 So. 3d 569 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A failure of a jury foreperson to sign verdict forms is harmless error if the jury's intent is clearly conveyed by other means in the record, and unpreserved procedural errors during jury selection are waived on appeal. Appellate courts review sufficiency of evidence using the Jackson v. Virginia standard and evaluate sentence excessiveness by considering proportionality and statutory guidelines.
Facts:
- In August 2010, M.V., a nineteen-year-old university student, traveled from Paris, France, to New Orleans with her friend M.A. to visit M.A.’s aunt.
- On August 28, 2010, M.V. and M.A. went to bars on Frenchmen Street, where M.A. introduced M.V. to Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca.
- M.V., M.A., and Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca visited three bars, during which M.V. testified she had no romantic or sexual interest in Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca.
- At the third bar, Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca told M.V. that M.A. had left and asked M.V. to follow him to meet M.A.
- M.V. followed Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca to the end of a street, where she began to feel in danger and started running away.
- Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca ran after M.V., caught her, got on top of her on the ground, hit her in the face about ten times with his fists, and penetrated her.
- Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca then fled the scene, and a gentleman named Eric Gordon, who witnessed part of the assault, helped M.V. and called 911.
- M.V. suffered severe facial injuries, including black eyes, swelling, a small nasal fracture, and her camera was missing from her purse.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 9, 2010, a grand jury indictment charged Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca with aggravated rape, second degree robbery, and second degree kidnapping.
- Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca pled not guilty to all charges.
- The trial court denied Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca’s motion to suppress the evidence.
- On September 14, 2011, the trial court granted the State’s motion to present evidence of other sexual acts (La. C.E. art. 412.2) and granted Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca’s motion for a continuance of the trial date.
- The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal denied the State’s writ application regarding the continuance, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, thus reversing the trial court’s granting of the continuance.
- Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca also sought review of the trial court’s ruling admitting the La. C.E. art. 412.2 evidence, and on September 20, 2011, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal denied his writ and request for a stay.
- Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca was tried by a twelve-person jury from September 20-23, 2011.
- The jury found him guilty of attempted forcible rape (Count One) and of simple kidnapping (Count Three), but not guilty of second-degree robbery (Count Two).
- On November 22, 2011, the trial court denied Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca’s motion for new trial.
- Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca was sentenced to seventeen years at hard labor for attempted forcible rape and five years at hard labor for simple kidnapping, with both sentences to run concurrently.
- He filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal, which was granted on March 21, 2012.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the failure of a jury foreperson to sign verdict forms, or a trial court's denial of the right to backstrike jurors, constitute reversible error if the jury's intent is otherwise clearly conveyed by the record and the defendant fails to contemporaneously object? 2. Is the evidence sufficient to support convictions for attempted forcible rape and simple kidnapping? 3. Are the sentences imposed for attempted forcible rape and simple kidnapping constitutionally excessive?
Opinions:
Majority - Madeleine M. Landrieu, Judge
Yes, Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca’s convictions and sentences for attempted forcible rape and simple kidnapping are affirmed. The failure of the jury foreperson to sign the verdict forms was harmless error because the jury's intent was unquestionably conveyed by handwritten notations on the forms and the trial transcript. The court found that the State provided reasonable notice of evidence of prior sexually assaultive behavior under La. C.E. art. 412.2, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the court determined there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca guilty of both attempted forcible rape, based on M.V.'s testimony, Eric Gordon's eyewitness account, M.V.'s injuries, and Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca's own admissions, and simple kidnapping, supported by testimony of M.V. being forcibly seized and carried. Furthermore, Carlos Vargas-Alcerreca's arguments regarding the denial of backstrikes during voir dire were not preserved for appeal due to his failure to contemporaneously object. Finally, the sentences of seventeen years for attempted forcible rape and five years for simple kidnapping (concurrently) were not constitutionally excessive, given the severe harm to the victim, the defendant's prior similar conduct, and the fact that the evidence could have supported a conviction for a more severe offense.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Tobias, J.
No, the failure of the jury foreperson to sign two of the three verdict forms is not subject to a harmless error analysis and should lead to reversal. Justice Tobias argued that La. C.Cr.P. art. 810 explicitly mandates that the foreman shall sign the verdict, and the Official Revision Comments confirm that this article abolished the prior rule allowing unsigned verdicts. He distinguished State v. Mitchell, which found unsigned verdicts harmless when jurors were polled, by noting that no polling occurred in this case. He further contended that State v. Green, relied upon by the majority, incorrectly interpreted the law by disregarding the statutory mandate and the lack of jury affirmation under La. C.Cr.P. art. 811. He expressed concern that without both a signed verdict form and jury polling, there is no certainty beyond a reasonable doubt as to the jury's actual verdict, thereby violating the defendant's substantial rights and procedural due process.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the tension between strict adherence to procedural rules and the application of harmless error doctrine in criminal appeals. The majority's decision reinforces the principle that procedural errors, such as unsigned verdict forms or unpreserved voir dire issues, may not warrant reversal if the jury's intent is otherwise clear and the defendant failed to make a contemporaneous objection. It also provides a standard framework for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence and sentencing excessiveness, emphasizing deference to the trial court's factual findings and discretion when supported by the record. The dissent, however, highlights the critical importance of strict compliance with statutory procedural mandates, particularly concerning the integrity of jury verdicts, suggesting a more rigid interpretation of what constitutes 'harmless' when fundamental due process is at stake. This case serves as a reminder to law students about the necessity of timely objections to preserve issues for appeal and the nuanced application of harmless error analysis.
