189 So. 3d 1079
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant, over 17, was charged with molestation of a juvenile under 13 (count1) and indecent behavior with a juvenile under 13 (count2).
- Victim was defendant’s daughter, B.M., who disclosed abuse in forensic interviews and to police after moving out in March 2012.
- State proved B.M.’s disclosures via video-recorded interviews and Dr. Jackson’s expert testimony about sexual abuse indicators.
- Defense denied acts occurred; jury found guilty on count1 and guilty of the lesser offense on count2; sentences run concurrently.
- Trial included admission of prior 2004 misconduct against B.M. under Rule 412.2 and multiple cross-examination and evidentiary rulings.
- Defendant appeals asserting sufficiency of evidence, improper admissibility of other-crimes evidence, denial of continuance, denial of mistrial, and excessive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for molestation of a juvenile and attempted indecent behavior | Roca standard supports conviction given B.M.’s in-court and recorded statements. | Victim’s claims were uncorroborated and possibly imagined or dreamt due to mother’s influence. | Sufficiency upheld; rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Admission of prior sexual acts (Rule 412.2) evidence | Prior 2004 incident shows lustful disposition toward children; probative and properly admitted with limiting instructions. | Probability of confusion and unfair prejudice; improper without full context. | Not error; admissible with limiting instructions; probative value not substantially outweighed. |
| Denial of motion to continue based on newly discovered evidence | Defense had ample time; May 4, 2012 statement lacked new material for defense. | Needed expert analysis on suggestiveness of statement; continuance necessary. | No abuse of discretion; continuation denied; no prejudice shown. |
| Mistrial based on cross-examination about a collateral civil custody proceeding | Cross-examination for impeachment; collateral nature does not mandate mistrial. | Unfair prejudice from collateral proceeding. | No abuse; cross-examination within scope; mistrial not warranted. |
| Excessiveness of sentences under Dorthey framework | Mandatory minimums are constitutional; judge considered factors and victim impact. | Sentence excessive given circumstances and possible downward departure. | Not excessive; sentences within statutory range and not grossly disproportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Onstead, 875 So.2d 908 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (elements of molestation; proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Roca, 866 So.2d 867 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (victim testimony alone can suffice in sexual offenses)
- State v. Stec, 749 So.2d 784 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1999) (credibility not reweighed on appeal; standard Jackson review)
- State v. Hotoph, 750 So.2d 1036 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1999) (child victims; lack of physical findings does not defeat abuse claim)
- State v. Hernandez, 93 So.3d 615 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (412.2 other crimes evidence; limiting instruction upheld)
- State v. Cosey, 779 So.2d 675 (La. 2000) (trial court not to be reversed absent abuse of discretion on admissibility)