Appeal from the 32nd Judicial District Court In and for the
Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Trial Court Numbers
729, 068 c/w 736, 842 Honorable John R. Walker, Judge
L. Waitz, Jr. District Attorney Ellen Daigle Doskey Assistant
District Attorney Houma, LA Attorneys for Appellee, State
M. Hillman Louisiana Appellate Project Covington, Louisiana
Attorney for Defendant/ Appellant, Maurice Banks
HIGGINBOTHAM, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.
defendant, Maurice Banks, was charged by bill of information
with obscenity, a violation of La. R.S. 14:106. The defendant
pled not guilty and, following a jury trial, was found guilty
as charged. The defendant filed a motion for postverdict
judgment of acquittal, which was denied. The State filed a
habitual offender bill of information. At a hearing on the
matter, the defendant was adjudicated a
fourth-or-subsequent-felony habitual offender and sentenced
to thirty years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of
probation or suspension of sentence. The defendant now appeals
asserting one assignment of error. We affirm the conviction,
habitual offender adjudication, and sentence.
defendant was an inmate at Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice
Complex (Ashland Jail). The inmates were housed in pods. Each
pod had eight dorms, and each dorm had eight cells. The dorms
were secured, not with bars, but with clear security glass.
On June 28, 2016, the defendant was in his cell (in the
"Charlie" pod). D.B.,  an EMT for Ashland Jail, was
passing out medications to inmates that day. D.B. testified
at trial that as she approached the hatch hole (where
medications were dispensed) to the defendant's dorm, she
saw the defendant masturbating. D.B. informed the deputy who
was making the rounds with her that the defendant was
exposing himself. By the time the deputy approached to see
inside the defendant's cell, the defendant covered
himself with a sheet so that he could not be seen. A
surveillance video at the jail captured the defendant's
actions and was introduced at trial.
defendant did not testify at trial.
sole assignment of error, the defendant argues the evidence
was not sufficient to support the conviction of obscenity.
conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand as it
violates Due Process. See U.S. Const, amend. XIV; La. Const,
art. I, § 2. The standard of review for the sufficiency
of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See La. Code Crim. P. art.
821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La. 11/29/06),
946 So.2d 654, 660; State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d
1305, 1308-09 (La. 1988). The Jackson standard of
review, incorporated in Article 821, is an objective standard
for testing the overall evidence, both direct and
circumstantial, for reasonable doubt. When analyzing
circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the
factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v.
Patorno, 2001-2585 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d
Revised Statute 14:106 ...