213 So. 3d 1195
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant John Matthew Breedlove was arrested at Barnes & Noble and convicted by an 11-1 jury on two counts of video voyeurism for conduct observed near two teenage girls (ages 16 and 17).
- Loss-prevention officer Robert Bolden observed Breedlove repeatedly positioning a phone/briefcase under girls’ skirts at a nearby Old Navy weeks earlier and later observed similar conduct at Barnes & Noble; he reported both events.
- Police seized Breedlove’s iPhone; forensic extraction yielded four videos and one photograph from prior dates showing Breedlove placing a phone in/under a container and waving it beneath a female’s skirt (and related footage). No photos or videos of the two Barnes & Noble victims were recovered from March 19, 2012.
- Breedlove moved to suppress prior-act evidence and to exclude testimony about an unnamed woman in running shorts; the trial court admitted the videos, photo, and officers’ testimony (including as res gestae/La. C.E. art. 404(B)/412.2 evidence).
- Sentenced concurrently: Count One (victim under 17) — 3 years hard labor without benefits + $1,000 fine; Count Two — 2 years hard labor. On appeal he challenged sufficiency, admission of prior-bad-acts evidence, and excessiveness of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove video voyeurism (Counts 1 & 2) | State: circumstantial evidence, victims’ IDs, officers’ observations, and videos permit inference of use of recording device and lewd intent | Breedlove: no recovered recording of the victims; testimony conflicts and is insufficient to prove lewd intent | Convictions affirmed — evidence sufficient to show use of device for voyeuristic, lewd purpose (intent may be inferred from circumstances) |
| Admissibility of videos/photograph from phone as La. C.E. art. 404(B)/412.2 other‑acts evidence | State: videos and photo show pattern, intent, absence of mistake and corroborate the charged events | Breedlove: prior videos/Old Navy testimony unduly prejudicial, lacked notice under 412.2, and did not prove minors or sexual nature | Trial court did not abuse discretion; admission of key videos and Old Navy testimony upheld; two marginal items (one video/photo) if erroneous were harmless |
| Admission of officers’ testimony about unnamed woman in running shorts (res gestae / notice) | State: officers’ observations formed part of continuous narrative of arrest and were in prior reports; admissible as res gestae | Breedlove: testimony was not listed in 404(B)/412.2 notice and not admissible under res gestae | Testimony admissible as res gestae; exclusion would have broken the narrative; no abuse of discretion |
| Sentence excessive (particularly Count Two) | State: multiple victims, repeated similar conduct, victims’ ages warrant significant punishment | Breedlove: first-time offender, no photos of victims, no contact, trial court didn’t adequately articulate reasons for maximum sentence on Count Two | Count One sentence affirmed (within range and supported); Count Two maximum sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing (trial court failed to justify max sentence) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schaller, 15 So.3d 1046 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009) (applies video voyeurism elements and permits other‑acts to show intent)
- State v. Saibold, 34 So.2d 909 (La. 1948) (defining "lewd or lascivious" behavior)
- State v. Interiano, 868 So.2d 9 (La. 2004) (upholding vagueness challenge standards for voyeurism statute)
- State v. Wright, 931 So.2d 432 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2006) (interpretation of "lewd and lascivious" in voyeurism context)
- State v. Odenbaugh, 82 So.3d 215 (La. 2011) (explaining res gestae exception for other‑crimes evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)
- State v. Jones, 184 So.3d 668 (La. 2015) (remanding where trial court failed to articulate reasons for imposing a maximum sentence)