State v. Stokes

Citations: 175 So. 3d 419; 2014 La.App. 1 Cir. 1562; 2015 La. App. LEXIS 1198; 2015 WL 3814529Docket: No. 2014 KA 1562

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 17, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Deborah Stokes was charged with theft of $500 or more under Louisiana Revised Statute 14:67(B)(1) before its amendments. She waived her right to a jury trial and was convicted after a bench trial, receiving a four-year hard labor sentence, which was upheld following her motions for a new trial and to reconsider the sentence. Stokes claims errors in admitting an affidavit into evidence, denying her motions, and asserts her sentence is excessive.

The case involves Stokes serving as an in-home caregiver for 91-year-old Jean Matherne, whose declining health led her family to consider assisted living. Despite this, Matherne returned home under Stokes' care, later revoking power of attorney from her family in favor of Stokes, who became the sole beneficiary of Matherne's will and received a $150,000 annuity. 

Suspicion arose when Matherne expressed concerns about large withdrawals from her bank account, prompting a bank manager to investigate. The investigation revealed numerous checks cashed by Stokes and transfers to her business, Jeremiah Sitter Services. During a meeting with the victim, Stokes attempted to explain the transactions, even providing a $10,000 cashier’s check to Matherne. Subsequent analysis by Detective Daniel Luckett uncovered discrepancies between Matherne's ledger and actual transactions, revealing altered checks and leading to an estimated total theft of $84,000. Stokes was arrested shortly thereafter.

The defendant challenges the trial court's admission of an affidavit as a business record, arguing it violated her rights under the Confrontation Clause. The affidavit, titled 'AFFIDAVIT OF FORGERY,' was prepared by the victim for American Gateway Bank, claiming that the defendant "may have stolen" checks. The bank manager stated such affidavits are standard procedure when unauthorized transactions are reported. The defendant objected to the affidavit's admission, citing the absence of the victim's testimony and cross-examination, and claimed it was the only evidence of misappropriation, rendering it testimonial in nature. She argued that the victim should not be considered unavailable and that the State could have secured her presence for testimony. Additionally, the defendant contended the affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay, not fitting the 'business record' exception. The excerpt references the constitutional guarantees that ensure a defendant's right to a complete defense and the Confrontation Clause's requirement for cross-examination of witnesses. Hearsay is defined, along with its exceptions, and the discretion of the trial court in evidence admissibility is noted. Finally, it highlights that errors related to confrontation rights are evaluated under a harmless error standard, requiring the reviewing court to determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key factors for a reviewing court include the significance of a witness's testimony to the prosecution's case, whether it is cumulative, the existence of corroborating or contradicting evidence, the extent of permissible cross-examination, and the overall strength of the prosecution’s case. A guilty verdict may remain if the reviewing court concludes that any error did not contribute to the verdict. Hearsay evidence may also be deemed harmless if it is cumulative and corroborates properly admitted evidence. 

Despite the defendant's claims that the victim’s affidavit violated the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules, the court found any potential error in admitting the affidavit to be harmless, as the trial evidence strongly supported the guilty verdict. The victim's ledger showed numerous discrepancies between the amounts noted and the actual checks cashed, indicating significant theft, with Detective Luckett estimating a total of $84,000 stolen. Additionally, another witness confirmed these discrepancies. 

During the trial, the defendant attempted to justify the checks as compensation, but her testimony regarding her salary was inconsistent and contradicted by the ledger, which did not support her claims of a pay increase. Furthermore, testimonies from multiple witnesses suggested that the defendant never lived with the victim, including a neighbor who noted the defendant’s vehicle was not present at the victim's residence.

A witness testified that during the period in question, the defendant frequently mentioned preparing dinner for the victim and sought permission to stay at the victim's home while babysitting nearby. When confronted about discrepancies related to forged checks at American Gateway Bank, the defendant left but soon returned with a $10,000 cashier's check for the victim, claiming it was at the victim's request to end the investigation, with a promise of repayment. Evidence, including altered checks payable to the defendant, supported the jury's guilty verdict for theft of $500 or more, making any errors relating to the affidavit inconsequential. 

In her third and fourth assignments of error, the defendant contended that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence and wrongfully denied her motion to reconsider. Despite being a first-time offender with no prior criminal record and the offense being non-violent, the court did not consider probation as an alternative and based its decision partly on the defendant's inability to pay restitution. The Louisiana Constitution prohibits excessive punishment, and although a sentence may fall within statutory limits, it can still violate constitutional rights if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense or unnecessarily burdensome. The trial court's discretion in sentencing is substantial, and a sentence will only be overturned for manifest abuse of that discretion. The Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to consider specific factors before sentencing, but it is not necessary to list every factor explicitly, as long as the record shows that the guidelines were adequately taken into account. Reviews for excessiveness involve examining the crime's circumstances and the trial court's stated reasons for its sentencing decision.

Remand for compliance with Article 894.1 is unnecessary if a sufficient factual basis for sentencing exists, as established in State v. Lanclos. Under La. R.S. 14:67(B)(1), theft involving a value of $500 or more can result in imprisonment for up to ten years, a fine of up to $3,000, or both. The four-year sentence imposed is within legal limits for the offense. During the sentencing hearing, victim impact statements from the victim's daughter and son-in-law detailed how the defendant exploited the victim's mental state and affected the family. The trial court also considered the defendant's status as a first offender, the victim's age, the lack of restitution likelihood, the offense's seriousness, and the defendant's conduct. The record supports the four-year sentence, and the assignments of error regarding the case are deemed without merit. The conviction and sentence are affirmed.