State v. Hernandez, 177 So. 3d 342

Defendant Francisco Hernandez was convicted of aggravated rape of a known juvenile, A.C., by a Jefferson Parish jury after a trial beginning June 10, 2013.
The alleged offenses occurred between November 1, 2005 and October 21, 2006; A.C. was five at the time of the first alleged acts and around 13 at trial.
The State presented the victim’s CAC interview and testimony from family members, detectives, and the defendant; the defense denied the allegations and disputed witnesses’ accounts.
A.C. testified that Hernandez and others abused him, including anal and oral acts, and described threats made to prevent disclosure; the CAC interview was played for the jury.
Hernandez moved for a new trial and later for judgment of acquittal; motions were denied, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, probation, or suspension.
On appeal, Hernandez contends there was insufficient evidence, the trial court erred in denying a new trial due to juror-deliberation issues, and Dr. Quo’s interview of the victim was improperly admitted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the evidence sufficient to convict for aggravated rape?	Hernandez asserts no basis exists for the acts or circumstances.	Evidence contradicts the allegations; numerous inconsistencies and non-custodial circumstances undermine guilt.	Yes; the evidence viewed most favorably to the State supports guilt.
Did the trial court err in denying the motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct outside the courtroom?	No reversible error; comments were not extraneous outside influence and jurors were instructed to rely on admitted evidence.	State conduct during bench conferences and closing violated due process and tainted deliberations.	No; no substantial extraneous influence; denial of new trial affirmed.
Was the interview of the victim by Dr. Quo admissible without calling Dr. Quo to testify, and was confrontation affected?	Interviews were admissible hearsay under medical treatment exception and properly published.	Interviews were improperly introduced; he could not cross-examine the interviewer and confrontation rights were violated.	Yes; the interview was admissible and defendant waived confrontation objections by not timely objecting.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 () (sufficiency standard: rational trier could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Roca, 866 So.2d 867 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/13/04) (no medical evidence required; victim testimony can sustain conviction)
State v. Alfaro, 128 So.3d 515 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/30/13) (jury may credit CAC interview over trial testimony; use of expert aid)
State v. Eskano, 779 So.2d 148 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01) (trial court credibility assessment of remarks and prejudice)
State v. Videau, 900 So.2d 855 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05) (juror testimony limited; outside influence analysis)
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 () (due process and impartial jury rights; outside influences must be absent)
State v. Marchand, 362 So.2d 1090 (La.1978) (juror impartiality and due process considerations)