128 So. 3d 421
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was convicted on two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile under LSA-R.S. 14:81 for acts against two girls aged 13 and 14 in Westwego, August 2011.
- Jury trial occurred September 25–27, 2012; verdicts of guilty on both counts followed a motion for new trial denied.
- Sentences were seven years at hard labor on each count, concurrent, with all but two years suspended and mandatory sex offender registration.
- On appeal, the convictions were challenged on sufficiency of the evidence and various evidentiary and trial-management rulings.
- This court affirms the convictions, but vacates the sentences and remands for resentencing consistent with this opinion; also notes an error-patent issue regarding the sentencing scheme.
- The record also details the State’s introduction of prior-acts evidence and the defense’s challenges to continuance, mistrial, and admissibility rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State argues the evidence showed lewd acts with two juveniles and intent to arouse. | Chaisson contends inconsistencies in testimony undermine proof beyond a reasonable doubt. | Sufficient; rational trier could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Continuance tied to other-crimes evidence | State contends admission of prior sex-offense evidence was proper; continuance not required. | Chaisson argues lack of preparation prejudiced defense. | No abuse of discretion; denial of continuance affirmed. |
| Mistrial for inadmissible other-crimes question | State argues the questioning did not force mistrial; no prejudice shown. | Chaisson seeks mistrial due to improper other-crimes implication. | Not a mandatory mistrial; discretionary admonition warranted but denial upheld. |
| Admissibility of prior conviction under Art. 412.2 | State contends prior carnal knowledge conviction relevant to lustful disposition. | Chaisson asserts prejudice outweighs probative value. | Admissible; probative value outweighed prejudice with limiting instruction. |
| Illegal sentences (patent error) | State argues sentences must be corrected administratively on remand. | Chaisson contends improper suspension without probation renders sentences illegal. | Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing under Article 893 and notice on 930.8. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 38 So.3d 953 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2010) (elements of indecent behavior with juveniles; specific intent inferred)
- State v. Lande, 934 So.2d 280 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2006) (definition of lewd or lascivious acts and-careful consideration of time/place/circumstances)
- State v. Interiano, 868 So.2d 9 (La. 2004) (expands scope of lewd acts to include in presence of child; contextual factors matter)
- State v. Williams, 91 So.3d 437 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2012) (admissibility of prior conviction to show lustful disposition; not required to be identical offense)
- State v. Edwards, 750 So.2d 893 (La. 1999) (Article 770/404 considerations for improper witness remarks; mistrial standards)