State of Louisiana Versus Gilbert J. Burciaga, 23-KA-13

Defendant convicted of sexual battery of a child under 13 and sentenced to 65 years as a second felony offender; appeal followed.
Appellant challenged several prospective jurors for cause at trial; on appeal he argued additional grounds (e.g., prior convictions, burden of proof) that were not expressly stated at trial.
Defendant moved pretrial to sever his trial from a co-defendant, asserting likely antagonistic defenses; the trial court denied the motion for lack of evidentiary support.
During closing, co-defendant’s counsel referred to an unidentified “monster” and questioned whether a person named “David” existed; defendant did not contemporaneously object at trial.
Trial court found no error patent; the appellate court affirmed convictions and sentence, holding the preservation rule and severance standards defeat defendant’s claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of challenge to juror Holmes (prior convictions)	State: defendant limited to grounds actually stated at trial under Clark; new grounds not preserved	Defendant: juror Holmes biased by defendant’s prior record and implied lesser presumption of innocence	Held: Not preserved — prior convictions were not asserted at trial and cannot be raised for first time on appeal
Preservation of challenge to juror Fabienne Elien (burden of proof)	State: only prior-conviction ground was raised at trial; burden-of-proof claim not raised	Defendant: Elien would not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt	Held: Not preserved — burden-of-proof ground was not articulated at trial
Motion to sever (antagonistic defenses)	State: denial proper because allegation of antagonism was unsupported; burden on mover	Defendant: prejudiced because co-defendant blamed him and defended inconsistently (pointing to another perpetrator)	Held: Denial affirmed — no evidence presented at hearing to show mutually antagonistic defenses or prejudice; mere finger-pointing insufficient
Closing argument (“monster” remark)	State: no contemporaneous objection, so claim is not preserved under La. C.Cr.P. art. 841	Defendant: remark implied defendant was the abuser and prejudiced jury	Held: Not preserved; even read in context, comment did not necessarily accuse defendant and no prejudice shown

State v. Clark, 220 So.3d 583 (La. 2016) (appellant limited to grounds articulated in challenge for cause)
State v. Nelson, 39 So.3d 658 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (may not raise new bases on appeal that were not asserted at trial)
State v. Sagastume, 353 So.3d 323 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2019) (appellate grounds preserved when sufficiently intertwined with trial objections)
State v. Holmes, 119 So.3d 181 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing pretrial motions to sever)
State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729 (La. 1984) (severance granted only for mutually antagonistic defenses causing prejudice)
State v. Lavigne, 412 So.2d 993 (La. 1982) (appellate review of pretrial severance must ignore trial evidence)
State v. Williams, 416 So.2d 914 (La. 1982) (pointing finger at co-defendant does not automatically require severance)