Appellate court reverses conviction of sex offender

11-15-2016 Louisiana:

Ruling: Jacobs should receive a new trial, chance at a fair jury

A registered sex offender who received a mandatory life sentence after being convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old local girl is getting a second shot at justice.

The 6th District Court of Appeals, headquartered in Texarkana, threw out Joshua Jacobs' conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child last week. Jacobs was found guilty in December 2015 by a Bowie County jury and received a mandatory life sentence based on his status as a sex offender required to register because of a prior conviction for felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile in Louisiana.

The higher court's reversal of Jacobs' conviction and order for a new trial stems from a ruling made by the trial judge during the jury selection process. The defense was not allowed to ask a panel of prospective jurors if an unrelated prior conviction for a sexual offense would lead them to believe Jacobs was guilty of committing the offense with which he was currently charged without making the state prove the elements required for a conviction under the law.

The ruling from 102nd District Judge Bobby Lockhart stemmed from concern that such a question might lead to a "poisoning" of the jury pool and make selecting a jury impossible. The defense was allowed to question the jury about their feelings concerning a prior "assaultive offense" but was not allowed to refer to the prior conviction as sexual in nature.

Among the elements the state must prove in any criminal case is that the offense occurred in the jurisdiction where the defendant is charged. The defense wanted to ask potential jurors if they would simply agree that elements the state must prove had been proven just because Jacobs had a prior conviction for a sexual offense.

In sexual abuse cases where a prior sexual abuse conviction exists, the state is allowed to present the information at trial. Jacobs' jury heard about the prior conviction during the state's opening statement and closing arguments and from the prior victim herself in the form of testimony.

The appeals court ruled that Jacobs' defense should have been able to question prospective jurors about their ability to follow the law in the presence of a prior conviction for a sexual offense so that potential jurors who said they would convict regardless of what the state proved based solely on the prior conviction could be excused from service. The higher court found that as a result, Jacobs' right to a fair and impartial jury was violated and that he should receive a new trial. ..Source.. by Lynn LaRowe