Judge Bennett upholds Rabalais conviction as accessory in Lachney death case

In an Oct. 8 hearing on a motion to set aside the jury’s verdict against Lisa Rabalais, District Judge William Bennett upheld the conviction.

Rabalais was found guilty Sept. 18 on the charge of accessory after the fact to felony homicide in connection with the death of Ray Paul Lachney.

Sentencing, with is a maximum of five years, is scheduled for Nov. 12.

“The defense attorney requested the jury’s verdict be overruled,” District Attorney Charles Riddle said. “The judge dismissed the motion. He agrees the jury got it right.”

Defense attorney Chad Guillot said a decision on appealing Bennett’s ruling will be made after Rabalais is sentenced on Nov. 12.

Lachney went missing in July 2015. His decomposed body was found along a railroad track in Mansura in early January 2016.

An autopsy could not determine the cause of death.

Rabalais was arrested as an accessory after the fact to homicide in 2018 after she reportedly told people that Andrew Bordelon told her he had killed Lachney.

According to testimony at trial, Rabalais, Lachney and Bordelon had driven to Baton Rouge in July 2015. On the way back, Lachney said he felt ill so they pulled over and he got out of the car.
Bordelon was reported to have left the car to retrieve Lachney but came back without him and drove off.

After dropping Rabalais off at her home, Bordelon is said to have left and returned a few hours later. Witnesses testified that Rabalais told them that Bordelon told her he had killed Lachney.

Guillot objected to the “she (witness) says-she (Rabalais) said-he (Bordelon) said” nature of the testimony as inadmissible hearsay.

The objection was overruled and the testimony was allowed.

Rabalais testified she never said that and that she never knew what happened to Lachney after he got out of the car.

Nobody has been arrested or convicted of killing Lachney, but state law does not require a conviction on the primary offense to proceed with charges against an accessory after the fact to that offense.

To be found guilty, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant had information about the crime and withheld that information from authorities investigating the crime.

Guillot contends the prosecution never proved that point and, in fact, never even proved there was a homicide to be an accessory to.