162 So. 3d 1233
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Anthony Farrier, an adult living in a household with a six‑year‑old (pseudonym "Admirabilis"), was tried and convicted by jury of sexual battery of a victim under 13 and sentenced to 75 years at hard labor.
- Allegations arose after the victim disclosed genital pain and that Farrier had touched her, shown "nasty videos," and made her imitate acts; a videotaped forensic interview and a hospital exam were conducted.
- Police obtained an arrest warrant and seized Farrier’s laptop; while jailed pretrial Farrier made numerous recorded phone calls.
- At trial the court excluded defense expert Dr. Bradley McAuliff’s opinion testimony about children’s memory and suggestibility.
- The court admitted redacted recordings of three jailhouse calls over Farrier’s objections (relevance, prejudice, hearsay, and lack of Article 412.2 notice).
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed: no abuse of discretion in excluding the expert and no abuse of discretion in admitting the three recorded calls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Farrier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defense expert testimony on children’s memory/suggestibility | Expert testimony would not be helpful to jury and risked confusion; trial court properly gatekept under La. C.E. arts. 702 and 403 | Exclusion prevented Farrier from presenting social‑framework evidence showing suggestibility and undermining victim’s statements | Trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony excluded as not helpful and potentially confusing (no Daubert hearing sought) |
| Admission of Call 1 (July 11 call referencing child pornography) under relevance/412.2 | Call tended to show defendant’s lustful disposition toward children and corroborated victim’s testimony about being shown porn; admissible and not unduly prejudicial | Irrelevant or unduly prejudicial under La. C.E. art. 403 | Admission affirmed: relevant under art. 412.2 and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Admission of Call 2 (Aug 9 call containing third‑party statements that "everybody said" he looked at young girls) — hearsay/"hearsay within hearsay" and notice under Art. 412.2 | Statements admissible because defendant’s silence/acquiescence made them adoptive admissions; prosecution provided reasonable notice under Article 412.2; probative | Called the third‑party remarks hearsay within hearsay; argued insufficient Art. 412.2 notice and undue prejudice | Overruled objections: court treated remarks as tacit adoptive admission (not hearsay); reasonable pretrial disclosure existed; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of Call 3 (Aug 11 call about seized computer/possible images) — relevance/412.2 and prejudice | Statements about computer/possible child images corroborated victim’s testimony about being shown images; relevant to lustful disposition | Argued lack of adequate notice and that evidence was unduly prejudicial | Admission affirmed: relevance established by prior testimony about porn on computer; defendant offered no persuasive showing of undue prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) (standard for expert testimony and whether jury will receive appreciable help)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (framework for admissibility of scientific expert testimony)
- State v. Rose, 949 So.2d 1286 (La. 2007) (Article 403 balancing; definition of "unfair prejudice")
- State v. Wright, 79 So.3d 309 (La. 2011) (discussing Article 412.2 and appellate standard for admission of other‑crimes/sex‑offense evidence)
- State v. Magee, 103 So.3d 285 (La. 2012) (preservation of evidentiary objections and review standards)