281 So.3d 745
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Manuel Dukes was charged with two counts of indecent behavior with juveniles for conduct on October 5, 2014 involving C.B. (born 2004) and C.S. (born 2008).
- Grandmother (Cynthia Bee) allegedly observed Dukes lying on a bed with his penis exposed; police bodycam captured initial on-scene interviews.
- Forensic interviews: C.B. described multiple episodes (Dukes pulling her from a sofa and placing himself between her legs; chasing her with hands in his pants; and seeing Dukes expose himself while she changed a diaper). C.S. gave less detail but later stated Dukes pulled his "thing" out while she was changing a diaper.
- Dukes waived jury trial; after a bench trial the court convicted him of the responsive verdicts of attempted indecent behavior with a juvenile (two counts) and sentenced him to concurrent suspended hard labor and probation, plus sex-offender registration and treatment.
- On appeal Dukes argued (1) insufficiency of evidence because the bill alleged acts "upon" the victims but there was no touching, and (2) Brady/Giglio violation because the State failed to disclose the grandmother's DWI conviction before closing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — whether evidence supports conviction for attempted indecent behavior (as charged) | State: victim statements, grandmother eyewitness account, and defendant's conduct permit a rational fact-finder to infer specific intent and an overt act toward committing a lewd act | Dukes: indictment alleged a lewd act "upon" victims; no evidence he physically touched them, so essential element lacking | Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational trier could infer specific intent and an overt act; attempt conviction supported despite absence of proven touching |
| Brady/new trial — nondisclosure of grandmother's DWI/rap sheet | State: the DWI occurred years after the offense; nondisclosure was not material and did not prejudice trial; trial court was informed before verdict | Dukes: suppression prevented impeachment of Ms. Bee and deprived a fair trial; would have impeached her testimony about not drinking | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; DWI conviction was not materially prejudicial and did not undermine confidence in the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence under due process)
- Mussall v. State, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (rationality and whole-record review under Jackson)
- Jones v. State, 74 So.3d 197 (La. 2011) (construction of attempt statute and sexual-offense statutes against juveniles)
- Interiano v. State, 868 So.2d 9 (La. 2003) (definition of lewd or lascivious act and discussion of 'upon' versus 'in the presence of')
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady materiality and impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady materiality standard: whether suppression undermines confidence in outcome)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial duty to disclose evidence favorable to accused)