108 So. 3d 833
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Davis was convicted by a jury on three counts of molestation of a juvenile under La. Rev. Stat. 14:81.2(A); adjudicated a second-felony habitual offender on Count Three; sentenced to 10 years (Count One), 25 years (Count Two), and 58 years (Count Three), all to be served concurrently, with sex-offender registration and costs or an extra year in jail if unpaid.
- The record shows defendant is indigent; the court struck the default jail time for failure to pay costs.
- Evidence included videotaped testimony from Gingerbread House at trial; Haas’s prior-false-accusation testimony was excluded after a motion in limine.
- Three victims testified via video: M.G. and M.T.-l, M.T.-2, with M.G. and M.T.-l/M.T.-2 providing details of sexual contact.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts after some additional deliberation following a partial verdict on two counts.
- On appeal, the convictions were affirmed; the sentences on Counts Two and Three were affirmed; Count One’s sentence was amended to remove a prohibition on benefits and an extra year of costs was struck, and as amended the sentence was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Davis argues no evidence of physical injury and lack of corroborating factors. | The defense contends elements not proven beyond reasonable doubt, including lack of injury and lack of threats or consideration. | Evidence supported lewd acts; a reasonable jury could find all elements satisfied. |
| Granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude Haas testimony | Excluding Haas testimony prejudiced the defense by limiting impeachment of false-accusation claims. | Exclusion was permissible; Haas testimony was prejudicial and not probative. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Haas testimony properly excluded. |
| Admissibility and use of Gingerbread House videos | Videos were admissible under statute and properly cross-examined; no contemporaneous objection required appeal presumption. | Defense failed to object; videotaped testimony complied with La. R.S. 15:440 et seq. | Videotaped testimony admissible; statutory requirements satisfied. |
| Additional jury deliberations after partial verdict | Court properly allowed further deliberation after foreperson indicated two counts reached verdict. | Potential deadlock or mistrial concerns; continuation was improper. | Courts may order further deliberations absent deadlock, and here it was reasonable. |
| Sentencing and adjustments for legality and proportionality | Sentences fall within statutory ranges and consider aggravating factors; Count One prohibition on benefits was erroneous. | Discretionary decisions within bounds; no manifest abuse. | Counts Two and Three affirmed; Count One amended to remove prohibition on benefits and strike cost-related extra year; overall affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leblanc, 506 So.2d 1197 (La. 1987) (relates to molestation and parole considerations in sentencing)
- State v. Holstead, 354 So.2d 493 (La. 1977) (older molestation case reflecting elements and proof required)
- State v. Interiano, 868 So.2d 9 (La. 2004) (provides framework for evidence and duties in molestation cases)
- State v. Frith, 747 So.2d 1269 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1999) (closed hearing standards for admissibility of prior false-accusation evidence)