State of Louisiana v. Gladue Joseph Istre, 2023-KA-0748

Gladue Joseph Istre was charged with two counts of first-degree rape based on allegations from two women (R.B. and B.B.), with events occurring in late 2018.
The State later amended the charges to second-degree rape before trial; Istre pleaded not guilty.
At trial, the jury heard testimony from the lead investigator, the two alleged victims, expert witnesses, and two additional women who alleged sexual misconduct by Istre in separate incidents.
The jury convicted Istre on Count 1 (second-degree rape of R.B.), acquitted him on Count 2 (B.B.), and he was sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor.
Istre appealed his conviction and sentence, raising evidentiary and sentencing issues, including sufficiency of the evidence, admission of expert and prior bad act testimony, and excessiveness of the sentence.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction but remanded for the trial court to clarify what portion of the sentence is to be served without parole, probation, or suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the Evidence (Second Degree Rape)	State provided sufficient evidence of non-consensual act with force; jury credited victim’s testimony.	Istre argued consent was withdrawn only after the fact, and no sufficient evidence of force above simple rape; victim’s behavior afterward was inconsistent with rape.	Conviction affirmed; jury believed victim, and evidence supported force overcoming resistance.
Admission of Delayed Disclosure Expert Testimony	Expert's training encompasses delayed disclosure; such testimony assists jury understanding.	Nurse not qualified to opine on delayed disclosure, and principle applies only to child victims.	No abuse of discretion; expert’s credentials sufficient; argument about scope not preserved for appeal.
Admission of Other Crimes Evidence Without Limiting Instruction	Testimony establishes intent, absence of mistake, pattern under Art. 404(B), 412.2; probative value outweighs prejudice.	Prejudicial impact outweighs probative value; limiting instruction required.	Admission proper; highly probative; error, if any, was harmless, and instruction issue not preserved.
Constitutionality/Excessiveness of Sentence	Sentence within statutory range and supported by facts.	Sentence excessive for first offender; trial court failed to provide reasons or individualize.	Remanded for clarification on parole/probation restriction; otherwise, error not addressed pending clarification.

State v. Macon, 957 So. 2d 1280 (La. 2007) (sets standard for sufficiency of evidence review in criminal cases)
State v. Pigford, 922 So. 2d 517 (La. 2006) (appellate court may only disturb factfinder's credibility decisions to preserve due process)
State v. Barbain, 179 So. 3d 770 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (victim testimony alone may be sufficient for conviction)