State v. Hawkins, 78 So. 3d 293

Indicted May 28, 2009 for aggravated rape; bench trial July 22, 2010 resulted in conviction of sexual battery, a lesser included offense; defendant's sentence was 25 years at hard labor with time served credits; victim was a six-year-old girl and the defendant stayed in the mother's home frequently; the mother testified the defendant was alone with the child the night of the alleged acts and the child later disclosed that the defendant placed his genitalia in her mouth; the state presented forensic interview and medical testimony; the defense denied any molestation and argued possible misidentification; the appellate court addressed errors patent and multiple trial issues including evidence, confrontation, alibi procedures, and expert funding; judgment concludes with conviction affirmed, sentence vacated, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to convict?	Hawkins: evidence identified him; child testimony and corroborating medical findings support sexual battery.	Hawkins: insufficient proof of identity and occurrence of the act.	Yes; evidence sufficient to support conviction.
Was the video/audio interview admissible given confrontation rights?	Hawkins: tape admissible under RS 15:440.4/15:440.5; detective supervised interview.	Hawkins: absence of interviewer for cross-examination violated confrontation rights.	Admissible; no confrontation error.
Was the taped statement of the victim properly admitted when the victim could not meaningfully testify?	Hawkins: victim competent to testify; tape corroborated by cross-examination.	Hawkins: confrontation rights violated due to unavailable witness.	No violation; victim provided meaningful testimony on cross-examination.
Did the state violate alibi disclosure procedures and must rebuttal witnesses be excluded?	Hawkins: no undisclosed rebuttal witnesses; alibi procedure complied.	Hawkins: noncompliance with Article 727 could bar rebuttal evidence.	No abuse of discretion; no undisclosed witnesses.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying funds for a child-witness expert?	Hawkins: indigence supported appointment of expert.	Hawkins: defendant not shown indigent; no proof of need.	No abuse of discretion; defendant not established indigence; remanded for resentencing.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard: rationaliste must prove elements beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984) (control of credibility and sufficiency under Jackson)
State v. Edwards, 750 So.2d 893 (La. 1999) (admissibility of evidence and related conduct of witnesses)
State v. Roberts, 966 So.2d 111 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2007) (recorded interview admissibility; supervisor requirement under RS 15:440.5(A)(6))
State v. Kennedy, 957 So.2d 757 (La. 2007) (Confrontation Clause and admissibility of declarant statements)