274 So. 3d 690
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim L.B., age 15, attended a party, drank alcohol and had taken prescribed Adderall; hospital toxicology showed BAC .123 and positive amphetamines.
- L.B. was found in a park with severe vaginal lacerations and active bleeding; SANE and physicians testified injuries were inconsistent with consensual sex.
- Juvenile W.A.P. was charged in juvenile court with third-degree rape (La. R.S. 14:43) and denied the allegations; the court adjudicated him delinquent after trial.
- At disposition the court committed W.A.P. to OJJ for three years (all but one month suspended to non-secure placement) and three years supervised probation with conditions including sex-offender therapy and no contact with victim.
- W.A.P. appealed, arguing insufficient evidence as to (1) the victim’s stupor/abnormal condition from intoxication, (2) his knowledge or constructive knowledge of that condition, and (3) nonconsent under the alternative statutory theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did evidence prove victim was in a "stupor or abnormal condition" from intoxicants (R.S. 14:43(A)(1))? | State: medical and toxicology evidence (.123 BAC, amphetamines) and physician testimony show impairment preventing consent. | W.A.P.: mere drinking is insufficient to establish stupor; consumption alone does not prove incapacity. | Court: Evidence sufficient; BAC and medical testimony supported agent-influenced incapacity to resist. |
| Did W.A.P. know or should he have known of victim’s incapacity? | State: testimony (police statement) and circumstances showed W.A.P. knew she was drunk or had reason to know. | W.A.P.: State failed to prove he supplied alcohol or observed her drinking; no proof of knowledge. | Court: Sufficient evidence (including detective’s testimony that W.A.P. said he believed L.B. was drunk); credibility resolved for the state. |
| Was there nonconsensual sexual intercourse under R.S. 14:43(A)(4)? | State: victim’s testimony that she said “no,” medical evidence of violent injuries, and defendant’s flight support nonconsent. | W.A.P.: contends trial focused only on incapacity theory, not lack of consent. | Court: Alternative theories allowed; evidence also supported nonconsent—conviction stands. |
| Any reversible procedural error at disposition? | N/A (state relied on record) | W.A.P. pointed out omission of advisal for post-conviction relief timeframe. | Court: Not reversible; court nevertheless advises two-year bar for post-conviction applications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Porter, 639 So.2d 1137 (La. 1994) (stupor/abnormal condition from intoxicants need not render victim wholly unaware; incapacity to effectively resist suffices)
- State v. Kelly, 244 So.3d 1251 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2018) (degree of alcohol influence is for the factfinder)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (jury need not agree on a single theory when multiple alternative theories are properly charged)
- State v. Vergo, 594 So.2d 1360 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (conviction upheld if sufficient evidence supports any charged theory)
- State ex rel. Glover v. State, 660 So.2d 1189 (La. 1995) (advisal of post-conviction limitation is supplicatory but noted for guidance)
- State v. Pugh, 911 So.2d 898 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (application of time limits for post-conviction relief)