State v. Greenup
123 So. 3d 768
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Troy Greenup was indicted for aggravated rape of his son D.B., alleged to have occurred when D.B. was about 3–5 years old; a jury convicted Greenup and he received mandatory life imprisonment.
- D.B. reported the abuse years later (around 2010); OCS and CAC investigations followed; forensic interviews produced consistent allegations but no physical injuries were found.
- Before trial the State gave notice it would introduce evidence of a prior sexual battery allegation against Greenup involving another boy, L.T., to show intent, opportunity, modus operandi, and a lustful disposition toward children.
- The trial court admitted the other-acts evidence under La. C.E. art. 412.2 (lustful disposition) after a hearing and gave a limiting jury instruction before L.T. and his mother testified.
- Defense argued the evidence was overly prejudicial; after conviction defense also moved for a new trial based on allegedly improper, inflammatory rebuttal remarks by the prosecutor (use of a derogatory slur). The court denied the motions.
- On appeal the court affirmed the conviction, holding the prior-act evidence admissible under Art. 412.2 and that the prosecutor’s rebuttal—while distasteful—did not warrant a new trial; remanded solely to notify defendant of sex-offender registration requirements.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Greenup's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior sexual-battery evidence (La. C.E. art. 412.2 / 404(B)) | Prior act with a similarly aged boy shows lustful disposition, intent/system, and is probative; probative value outweighs prejudice | Prior-act evidence was highly prejudicial and should be excluded | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible under Art. 412.2 (lustful disposition) with limiting instruction |
| Prosecutor’s rebuttal remarks (use of derogatory term) — motion for new trial | Rebuttal properly responded to defense theory that victim fabricated allegations; remarks addressed foreseeable consequences of fabrication | Remarks were inflammatory, exceeded scope of rebuttal, and prejudiced jury warranting new trial | Denied: remarks were distasteful but within permissible rebuttal scope and did not warrant new trial |
| Whether other-acts evidence required stricter limits under Art. 403 balancing | Probative of disposition, presented orderly, limiting instruction minimized prejudice | Probative value was substantially outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice/confusion | Court performed balancing, found probative value substantially outweighed prejudice; admission proper |
| Patent error re: sex-offender notification | N/A | N/A | Remanded: record lacked required written notice of sex-offender registration; trial court must provide notice and file proof |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 28 So.3d 357 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2009) (general rule and limits on other-crimes evidence)
- State v. Olivieri, 860 So.2d 207 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003) (admission of prior sexual-offense evidence under Art. 412.2 after balancing)
- State v. Williams, 91 So.3d 437 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (prior sexual conviction relevant to show lustful disposition toward children)
- State v. Cupit, 179 So. 837 (La. 1938) (recognition of ‘‘lustful disposition’’ exception)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (caution against luring factfinder to guilt on improper grounds; relevance vs. prejudice balancing)