State v. Ardoin, 58 So. 3d 1025

Defendant Aaron Ardoin indicted May 6, 2008 for aggravated rape, indecent behavior with a juvenile, and oral sexual battery; convicted on all counts on May 27, 2010; life imprisonment for aggravated rape and 10-year terms for the other counts, all concurrent; sentences imposed July 15, 2010; no motion to reconsider sentences.
Victim was nine years old; Defendant was 43 at the time of offense.
Defendant appealed asserting (1) denial of motion to suppress three statements and (2) enhanced sentence for indecent behavior with a juvenile violated the Sixth Amendment.
Three statements were obtained over two days; Miranda waivers were signed for the first two statements; the third statement was taken after transport to Ville Platte; defense argued coercion and improper burden-shifting under La. C.Cr.P. art. 703.
The trial court denied the suppression motion finding the statements voluntary; on appeal, court held burden of proof issue acknowledged but ultimately concluded statements were voluntary; issue of coercion was reviewed and rejected; the enhanced sentence under La.R.S. 14:81(H)(2) was reviewed for Apprendi-style error and harmless error, with evidence showing both the victim’s age and defendant’s age were proved at trial.
Convictions and sentences affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression burden and voluntariness	Ardoin argues State bears ultimate burden to show voluntariness.	Ardoin claims the court improperly shifted burden to him to prove non-voluntariness.	Burden shift acknowledged; statements held voluntary; denial affirmed.
Miranda waivers and taint on third statement	State maintains waivers valid and third statement properly preceded by warnings.	Ardoin contends third statement tainted by prior interrogation without proper warnings.	Waivers valid; third statement admissible; coercion claim rejected.
Enhanced sentence under 14:81(H)(2) and Apprendi issue	State contends enhanced term needed for victim under age 13; jury not required to find this element.	Apprendi/Ring/Blakely require jury finding on age element for enhanced penalty.	Apprendi error but harmless; evidence supported age findings; sentence affirmed.

State v. Rodrigue, 409 So.2d 556 (La. 1982) (burden on suppression; exception for voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Lovett, 345 So.2d 1139 (La. 1977) (state must prove voluntariness at suppression hearing)
State v. Lavalais, 685 So.2d 1048 (La. 1997) (coercive but non-promissory police conduct analyzed for voluntariness)
State v. Demming, 911 So.2d 894 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (evaluates coercive inducements; mild exhortations usually not coercive)
State v. Blank, 955 So.2d 90 (La. 2007) (interrogation duration and coercion considerations; coercion not shown here)
Gibson, 38 So.3d 373 (La. 2010) (Apprendi harmless error analysis when element omitted from bill)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (jury instruction omission may be harmless error)
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (harmless error framework for enhanced sentencing factors)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Sixth Amendment requires jury finding for aggravating factors)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (sentence enhancement based on facts not admitted or found by jury is unconstitutional)
State v. Montejo, 40 So.3d 952 (La. 2010) (limits on raising suppression grounds on appeal)