HOME FREE CLASSIFIEDS OBITUARIES EVENTS ANNOUNCEMENTS OPINIONS WEATHER OUTDOORS TEXAS LOUISIANA NATIONAL Toledo Bend Lake Information
|
Hot News Tip? Call Phil Yocom's Cell Phone at 936/275-6206 |
Jury Sentences Man to 99 Years in Sex Assault Case
A Sabine County jury took only 18 minutes to find 29-year-old Jesse Wayne Turley guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years old and only 38 additional minutes to sentence him to prison for 99 years and impose a fine of $10,000.
Turley, represented by attorney Donovan Dudinsky, pled not guilty at the opening of the trial in 273rd District Court before District Judge Charles Mitchell in Hemphill on Monday.
The trial got underway in the early afternoon as District Attorney Kevin Dutton, representing the State of Texas, said in his opening statement that evidence would show on or about July 3, 2006, Turley had attempted to sodomize Jane Doe*, a 5 year old girl, by having her perform oral sex on him.
Doe had given an “out cry statement”, which is a plea for help after a traumatic event has occurred, to her mother, Ms. Doe on September 7, 2009, saying Turley had attempted to have her perform the sexual act.
Ms. Doe and Jane currently reside in another Texas county.
Turley was questioned by Sabine County Deputy Hector Vazquez on September 8, 2009 and Turley denied being guilty of any inappropriate behavior.
On September 17, 2009, Jane Doe underwent a forensic examination at the Child Protection Services (CPS) office in Lufkin in which she again reiterated the incident to a specialist.
Deputy George Griffith interviewed Turley again on September 30, 2009 who signed a statement as to his recollection of the alleged incident.
During his opening statement, Dudinsky informed the jury that Turley barely had a sixth grade education and cannot read or write well, and because of that, he does not possess a drivers license.
Under direct examination by Dutton, Ms. Doe testified that she and Turley had been a couple and although they never married, had two children together. The couple split up prior to Jane being born. She told the court when she told Turley it was his child, he denied it and it took three years to establish paternity.
She further testified that Turley had nothing to do with Jane, but had court appointed visitation rights. Turley had made accusations that Ms. Doe had abused Jane, not fed her or taken proper care of her, said Doe.
She went on to say Jane had come back from a visitation with Turley on Labor Day, 2009, when she made her out cry statement, saying that Turley had done something very bad and went on to describe some of the things in detail.
Ms. Doe, in emotional testimony, stated, “It had been going on for three years, since Jane was 5 years old.”
Since that time, Jane has been in counseling but is still having very serious problems.
Under cross-examination by Dudinsky, Ms. Doe said she reported the out cry statement to Deputy Hector Vazquez one day later on September 8, 2009.
When Dudinsky asked if she knew that someone else had also touched Jane inappropriately, Ms. Doe said, “She never said anything to me about anyone else, just Turley.”
She went on to say that Turley was abusive and that is why she left him so the children would not have to witness the abuse.
On re-direct testimony under questioning by Dutton, Ms. Doe said that when Jane told her about what had happened, she called CPS the next morning and then went to the local police station in the city in which they live. She was told by the police the complaint would have to be filed in Sabine County as that is where the incident occurred and she “…did what they (the Sabine County Sheriff’s Department) told her to do.”
Dutton next questioned Sabine County Deputy George Griffith about his involvement in the investigation.
Griffith stated he took over the investigation from Vazquez and arranged for the forensic exam and interview in Lufkin.
On September 10, 2009, Griffith read Turley his rights, whereupon Turley provided a statement denying allegations of sexual molestation of the child. At this encounter, Griffith said he learned that Turley could not read or write well, so he wrote out the statement as Turley dictated it. After providing the statement and having it read back to him, Turley was released.
On September 30, 2009, Griffith again interviewed Turley who gave a second statement.
As Dutton attempted to introduce the statement into evidence, Dudinsky objected and the jury was sent into the jury room out of earshot, to hear the arguments over admissibility.
Dudinsky argued the statement was not made voluntarily; that no audio tape or video tape was made of the interview to substantiate it was made voluntarily. Also of concern was that Turley provided the statement after undergoing a polygraph test, which is not admissible as evidence.
Griffith then testified that he typed out the statement as Turley spoke it, read it back to him twice and Turley agreed it was correct and signed it in front of Notary Kelly Horn.
Griffith testified there is a difference between interviewing a suspect and interrogating a suspect.
An arrest warrant was issued for Turley’s arrest on October 6, 2009 for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years old.
Dudinsky, in cross-examination of Griffith, questioned the admissibility of the verbal statement made by Turley and typed by Griffith, saying it should be considered hearsay.
Griffith testified that he gave Turley his Miranda Rights to back up the statement as being legitimate.
Dudinsky then asked Griffith if he requested the statement from Turley in an attempt to get a confession, to which Griffith replied, “Yes.”
Sheriff’s Office Administrative Assistant Kelly Horn testified that she was a Notary Public and had witnessed Turley sign the statement on September 30 after Griffith had read it back to him.
She testified under questioning by Dudinsky that she did not sit through the interview session. In response to continued questioning, she told Dudinsky that she has never witnessed a signature of someone she believed to be under duress or have diminished capacity and that Turley replied yes when Griffith asked him if he knew what he was signing.
Judge Mitchell ruled to allow the second statement into evidence and the jury was once again seated in the jury box.
Griffith continuing his testimony under questioning by Dutton, said Turley’s second statement of September 30 told the story of how Turley and Jane were at Lakeview Park in the Six Mile area when Jane pulled down his shorts and tried to put his penis in her mouth. Turley said in the statement that he told her not to do that and that he needed to get Jane some help, but in the statement could not remember if penetration actually took place.
Griffith witnessed Jane’s forensics interview on closed circuit television, and the information provided during the interview and the out cry statement contained no significant differences.
Dudinsky then cross-examined Griffith on the issues of Turley providing the statement voluntarily and lack of recording the interview and statement process. Griffith testified the statements were given voluntarily, Turley was read his rights and after the interview, Turley walk out of the Sheriff’s Office and was not under arrest.
Dutton then questioned Griffith on re-direct and elicited the evidence that Turley had put his initials beside each Miranda Right read to him, indicating that he understood the rights as read.
Griffith said it is normal that anyone who provides a voluntary statement is Mirandized as the statement could be incriminating.
Kelly Horn returned to the stand in the presence of the jury and again testified under direct examination from Dutton that she notarized Turley’s September 30 statement. She said Griffith had read the statement back to him and asked, “Is that what you wanted to say?” to which Turley replied, “Yes.” and that Turley did not appear to be under duress as he was smiling during the process.
Horn went on to testify under questioning by Dudinsky that she would not notarize any document if she believed the signer was being forced to sign, under duress or had diminished capacity.
The day ended after Jane Doe took the witness stand in a closed court session with the jury present and testified for just over 30 minutes.
After returning to open court, District Attorney Dutton rested the state’s case Monday afternoon.
When the trial resumed on Tuesday morning, Dudinsky did not call any witnesses and rested the case of the defense.
In closing arguments on Tuesday morning, Dutton told the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt had been provided about Turley’s guilt, that he had sexually assaulted Jane Doe, and that Turley had rejected a plea bargain in the case.
Dudinsky asked the jury to consider whether or not Turley had intentionally or knowingly committed the offense, as if either were not true, he could not be found guilty under law. He also pointed out that the forensics examiner who interviewed Jane was not present to give testimony and that “…sometimes children become pawns in parental relationships.”
In redress, Dutton told the jury that Turley’s second statement was self-serving as he attempted to shift the blame for the incident onto Jane and if there was any question about his intent or knowledge, just to recall Jane’s emotional testimony.
“It’s everybody’s fault but his,” Dutton said, “There is no reasonable doubt he is guilty of the charge of aggravated sexual assault.”
The jury was charged and went to the jury room at 9:34AM Tuesday, and reached their verdict at 9:52AM.
As the jury returned to the courtroom, Turley appeared to have a smirk on his face, but when the guilty verdict was read, he had no reaction.
The punishment phase of the proceedings took place next and saw Dutton introduce additional statements from Turley in which he admitted to another incident of sexual assault of a child under 14 years old.
The punishment could range from 5 to 99 years in prison, life in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.
“The only way justice can be done is to put this man away for 99 years and fine him $10,000. That’s justice!” Dutton thundered in his closing statement. “I have a job to do, and that is to protect little girls.”
Dudinsky admitted the indictment on the additional charge but since Turley had not been tried and found guilty, questioned how much weight jurors should give the information.
“Justice wears a blindfold; she has scales; because she is weighing evidence,” Dudinsky told the jury.
The jury retired to deliberations at 10:48AM and was out for 38 minutes.
During the time, Turley was seen laughing and telling stories with his mother.
The jury returned and issued the sentence of 99 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.
Turley remained unemotional.
He was taken into custody, handcuffed and returned to Sabine County Jail where he awaits transport to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
*The identity of the now 8-year-old child is being withheld to protect her identity. |
|
|
.JPG)
