State v. Gordon
146 So. 3d 758
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Daniel Gordon was convicted on Counts 1 and 3 of aggravated rape and Count 4 of simple robbery; Counts 1 and 3 involved alleged 1996 and 1997 rapes, and Count 4 involved a 1997 robbery.
- Trial court admitted prior similar crimes evidence under Prieur and related rules; two rapes and a robbery were charged, with DNA linking the defendant.
- Sentence: life imprisonment for Count 1; fourteen-year (later amended) sentence for Count 4 as a second-felony habitual offender; chemical castration provision ordered but later deleted on retroactivity/constitutional grounds.
- Court identified three patent errors: (1) failure to sentence Count 3; (2) improper parole restriction for Count 4; (3) improper application of La. R.S. 14:43.6 chemical castration for retroactive offenses.
- Court remanded for sentencing on Count 3; amended Count 4 to remove parole restriction and deleted chemical castration provision; case remanded for sentencing on aggravated rape Count 3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated rape convictions | Gordon argues DNA and other evidence fail to prove lack of consent | Gordon contends lack of force/threats/weapon undermines conviction | Evidence sufficient; any reasonable juror could conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Whether Count 3 sentencing was properly entered | Trial court imposed life on Count 3 | Transcript shows no sentencing on Count 3 | Remand for sentencing on Count 3. |
| Whether the Count 4 sentence exclusive of parole was authorized | Habitual offender statute supports no parole restriction for simple robbery | Restriction was improper | Amend Count 4 to delete parole restriction. |
| Whether application of chemical castration La. Rev. Stat. 14:43.6 was proper | statute retroactive punishment allowed under ex post facto | statute unconstitutional retroactive punishment | La. R.S. 14:43.6 cannot be applied retroactively; delete from sentence. |
| Admissibility of other-crimes evidence (404(B) and 412) | Evidence of prior crimes admissible for motive/identity under 404(B) and 412 | Risk of unfair prejudice and improper purpose | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible under balancing tests. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973) (established admissibility framework for other-crimes evidence)
- State v. Washington, 830 So.2d 288 (La.2002) (retroactivity analysis under La. C.C. art. 6; procedural vs substantive law)
- State v. Rose, 949 So.2d 1236 (La.2007) (balancing test for 404(B) evidence; rape shield considerations)
- State v. Henry, 102 So.3d 1016 (La.App. 4 Cir.2012) (abuse of discretion in 403 balancing; harmless error inquiry)
- State v. Scoggins, 70 So.3d 145 (La.App. 4 Cir.2011) (remoteness and probative value in 404/B evidence; harmless error)