160 So. 3d 1040
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- juvenile to prostitution by solicitation under La. R.S. 14:82; adjudication affirmed despite trafficking issue
- defense moved to recuse judge; motion denied as untimely but later deemed error
- adjudication occurred Feb 3, 2014; defense rested without evidence; State relied on Sgt. Welch testimony
- court acknowledged 2012–2013 trafficking statutes; questioned burden of proof on State to negate trafficking defense
- disposition hearing not conducted; excessive $55 fee; remanded for proper disposition under law
- court ultimately affirmed delinquency adjudication but vacated disposition and ordered remand to proper disposition proceedings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof on trafficking defense in delinquency | MJ relies on trafficking presumption to negate delinquency | State bears burden to prove not trafficked; no burden on MJ | State had no burden to prove not trafficked; sufficient evidence of delinquency |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove prostitution by solicitation | Two elements met; MJ committed offense | No trafficking evidence; but elements satisfied | Evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to adjudicate delinquent |
| Motion to recuse judge and prematurity of ruling | Motion filed timely; judge biased | Judge biased; requires hearing | Trial court erred in denying recusal motion without a hearing; error harmless in majority view |
| Disposition hearing and fee assessment error | Disposition should follow due process; fee within statutory limit | Disposition hearing not held; fee excessive | Disposition vacated and remanded for proper disposition and fees |
| Impact of Safe Harbor/trafficking statutes on delinquency prosecution | Statutes preclude prosecution if trafficking victim | Statutes do not bar prosecution absent proof of victim status | Legislation creates protections but does not outright immunize all trafficking victims from delinquency prosecutions |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. D.R., 50 So.3d 927 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (clearly wrong standard; juvenile adjudication review)
- Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La.1984) (justify defenses treated as affirmative defenses; burden on state)
- Fluker, 618 So.2d 459 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1993) (burden for justification defenses unsettled; defendant not always burdened)
- Jones, 119 So.3d 859 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2013) (unresolved burden issue in non-homicide cases; context-specific)
- Cooks, 81 So.3d 932 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2011) (evidence sufficiency when defenses not presented; burden considerations)
- State in the Interest of J.T., 94 So.3d 847 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2012) (juvenile proceedings element and review standard)
- State v. Cheatwood, 458 So.2d 907 (La.1984) (affirmative defenses and burden in non-homicide)
- State v. Rainey, 722 So.2d 1097 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1998) (burden of production for defenses varies by context)