Summary
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal considers David Wilson Waters’s appeal from convictions for two counts of molestation of a juvenile. The opinion addresses the sufficiency of the evidence, inconsistencies and delayed disclosures in the victims’ accounts, and whether the indictment supported enhanced sentences for victims under age 13 under La. R.S. 14:81.2(D)(1).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Waters's convictions despite inconsistencies and delayed disclosures in the victims' statements and testimony.
- Whether the indictment was legally insufficient to support sentencing under La. R.S. 14:81.2(D)(1) because it cited La. R.S. 14:81.2 generally and did not use the words under the age of 13 years, despite alleging the victims' birth dates and the charged offense period.
- Whether imposing two consecutive twenty-five-year sentences for molesting two children under thirteen constituted cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment under La. Const. art. I, § 20.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to support both convictions. The jury could rationally credit the victims' testimony and reject the defense account despite inconsistencies, delayed disclosure, and the absence of physical evidence.
- The indictment adequately supported the enhanced sentences because it cited La. R.S. 14:81.2 and alleged the victims' birth dates and the date range of the offenses, which clearly indicated that the victims were under thirteen at the time of the offenses. The failure to cite subsection (D)(1) or use the exact phrase under the age of 13 years did not require reversal.
- The two consecutive twenty-five-year sentences were not cruel, excessive, or unusual under La. Const. art. I, § 20.
Key quotations
“The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the case in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (8)
“Rather, the defendant would have to also show he was prejudicially misled by the bill’s failure to so specify.” (18)
“Waters’s effective 50-year sentence is neither cruel, nor excessive, nor unusual, and the constitution does not require favoritism for older criminals.” (21)
Factual background
Waters lived with his longtime partner, Debbie Holt, who had guardianship of her granddaughters H.H. and K.H., both of whom were under thirteen during the charged period. H.H. testified that Waters molested her in the bedroom he shared with Holt, and K.H. later testified that Waters also touched her genital area and held her down. The defense denied that Waters was ever alone with the girls and offered an alibi, but the jury heard inconsistent accounts from Waters and Holt and was not presented with testimony from the purported corroborating witness. The jury convicted Waters on both counts.
Procedural history
Waters was charged in the First Judicial District Court for Caddo Parish, tried before a jury, and convicted on two counts of molestation of a juvenile. The trial court imposed two consecutive twenty-five-year sentences. On appeal, Waters challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the sentences; the State also argued that the sentences were illegally harsh because the indictment did not specifically cite the enhanced penalty subsection. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, rejected all arguments and affirmed the convictions and sentences.