221 So. 3d 28
La.2017Background
- In 2012 Andre J. Davis was tried and convicted in district court of domestic abuse battery involving strangulation under La. R.S. 14:35.3; sentence suspended and two years active probation imposed.
- Victim Eugenia Leonard testified Davis (the child’s father) had been staying with her, they had an intimate relationship of several years, attended counseling, and had a six-week‑old daughter when the incident occurred; she testified Davis choked her in her apartment after she told him to leave.
- Davis denied strangling Leonard, disputed that he was living with her (saying he lived in a dorm), and denied contributing to household expenses; both parties gave conflicting testimony about who called Davis’s parents after the incident.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated the conviction, holding the State failed to prove the parties were “household members” because it required proof of “open concubinage” (a civil‑law concept roughly like living together as husband and wife).
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted writ, held the appellate court erred by importing the archaic concubinage standard, and reversed and remanded, reinstating that the evidence was sufficient under the household‑member definition then in force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove the offender and victim were “household members” under La. R.S. 14:35.3(B)(2) | Evidence of multi‑year intimate relationship, shared parenting, staying together, expectation of household contribution, and presence in the residence supports a rational trier of fact finding household status | Parties described defendant as “staying” (not “living”), defendant denied living there and denied contributing or keeping belongings; appellate required stronger proof of spousal‑type cohabitation | Reversed appellate court; viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, sufficient evidence supported household‑member element |
| Whether the phrase “as a spouse, whether married or not” incorporates the civil‑law concept of “open concubinage” | Legislature intended relationship akin to marriage without requiring marriage’s formalities; ordinary meaning governs when not a technical term | Appellate court: phrase requires proof of open concubinage (indices of marriage) | Supreme Court: rejects concubinage import; statute does not invoke that technical/archaic term |
| Proper interpretive approach and standard of review (Jackson v. Virginia) | Appellate court misapplied sufficiency review by substituting its judgment and imposing extra statutory requirements | Argues sufficiency lacking under statute’s residency language | Court reiterates Jackson standard; appellate review must defer to rational factfinder and not require proof beyond statute’s terms |
| Probation conditions and other appellate rulings | State did not seek writ on other aspects; some appellate findings remain | Davis did not seek writ on those matters | Supreme Court left undisturbed appellate rulings that district court failed to impose mandatory probation conditions; remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Petty v. Petty, 560 So.2d 629 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990) (discusses civil‑law concept of open concubinage)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Stowe, 635 So.2d 168 (La. 1994) (permitting resort to common understanding when statute uses nontechnical terms)
- State v. Johnson, 870 So.2d 995 (La. 2004) (summarizes Jackson sufficiency standard in Louisiana context)
- State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984) (discusses appellate review of sufficiency)
- State v. Sylvia, 845 So.2d 358 (La. 2003) (applies Jackson standard to Louisiana sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompson, 399 So.2d 1161 (La. 1981) (example of elements subject to common understanding)